!! CALL TO ACTION !!

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT...
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD

...many more articles in progress of being posted, keep checking back!!

SIGN THE... Petition to President Obama to Support Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods >>

What You Should Know About Genetically Modified Foods! >> What is Genetic Modification & Engineering?

Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research >>

Sixty-Five Health Risks of GM Foods >>

Unsafe Genetically Modified Food: GMO Proliferation Bills in the US Congress >>

GMO and Morgellons Disease >>

Death of the Bees: GMO Crops and the Decline of Bee Colonies in North America >>

Seeds of Destruction, The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation >>

The Money Tree >>

Rossland says no to GE plants >>

Plea to lift ban on GMO heard today in Bacolod >>

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food >>

Canadian Wheat Board resists GM wheat collaboration >>

Lawmaker eyes listing of genetically-modified crops

Article posted May 05, 2009 - 11:49 AM
MANILA, Philippines - Wary of potential environmental and human threats from genetically modified organism (GMO) agricultural products, a party-list lawmaker urged the Department of Agriculture (DA) to register all GMOs used by companies and institutions in the country.

Rep. Narciso Santiago III (ARC) filed House Bill 6061 to give consumers a choice between natural food or agricultural products and those with GMO.

“GMO has its advantages specially increasing agricultural yield at lower production cost by eliminating the need for commercial pesticides. However, there were also claims GMOs go against the natural evolution of crops and have yet to be ascertained as safe to humans or to the environment," Santiago said in an article on the House of Representatives Web site.

Santiago said the registry of information about the GMOs should be open to the public upon request and in written or electronic form available in the department’s Web site.

The registry system would include information on how a company or institution uses GMOs, including the subject agricultural product or crop.

Also, the DA should establish maps for each region where GMOs are used or being used, stating the exact location and type of organisms.

The bill defines GMO as an organism that has been altered at the molecular or cellular level by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes, including recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, micro-encapsulations, gene deletion and doubling.

GMO could also be a product of an introduction of a foreign gene, the process that changes the position of genes, other than a means consisting exclusively of breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in-vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.

Santiago cited as an example the Bt-corn, the first genetically modified crop approved for field-testing in the country. - GMANews.TV

 

_______________________________________________________________________

http://ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/05/16/alert-ghanaians-consuming-gm-foo
ds-without-knowing/

Alert: Ghanaians consuming GM foods without knowing!
<http://ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/05/16/alert-ghanaians-consuming-gm-fo
ods-without-knowing/>

gm-crops
<http://ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/02/27/ghana-to-start-field-trials-wit
h-gm-crops/gm-crops/> Ghanaians are daily consuming genetically modified
(GM) products imported by various traders without much care. However, as the government prepares to allow the planting of GM crops locally in a bid to boost food production, one non-governmental organisation, Friends of the Earth (FoE) Ghana is sounding the alarm.

Field trials of GM crops in Ghana began in May 2008, regulated by existing legislation coverying the conduct of research in general. A Biosafety Bill that will establish a framework for the commercial growing of genetically-modified crops in the country is presently before parliament.

Professor Walter Alhassan, a consultant for the Accra-based Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) - an umbrella organisation that brings together agricultural research organisations on the continent - told IPS that “the government needs to speed up the passage of the Biosafety Bill to the global trend to improve agriculture and food security.”

For 2009, finance and economic planning minister Dr Kwabena Duffuor said Ghana has targeted increases of 42.2 percent for maize and 22.8 percent for rice. The production of groundnuts, cowpea and soyabean are projected to increase by 25.4 per cent, 37.7 per cent and 11.5 per cent, respectively.

Some scientists have suggested that the country will need to find new ways to improve agricultural productivity if the government’s target is to be met.

Prof Alhassan says “the report on Global Status of Biotech/GM crops identified challenges in the agricultural sector in Africa as low technological deployment, climate change problems, market constraints among others and stated that biotechnology is one of the tools that can make a meaningful contribution to the challenges facing the continent.
Therefore it would be wise for us to embrace this idea to meet the challenges.”

FoE Ghana’s Programme Officer on GMO’s Cheryl Agyepong hits back that “the argument of Africa’s food insecurity is what is being used to push the continent into GM farming, an area that is not well known yet.”

She explained that FoE’s position is not a blind resistance to the introduction of GM into Ghana. “We want more research to be conducted into what the technology really is and this is a genuine concern.”

Agyepong says GM crops are different from conventionally-bred hybrids which have been properly researched. “Unfortunately, a decade after the talks about GM, we are still in the dark and it is important that we wait for more research to be conducted so that we know, for instance, how GM contamination can be contained.” Contamination refers to the spontaneous cross-pollination of GM crops with others, which can spread genetically-modified genes into conventional harvests and wild plants.

This position is backed by the ActionAid International, a global non-governmental agency which says the impact of GMOs on health and the environment has not been ascertained.

“Even the producers of GMOs do not fully know how the introduction of foreign genes affect human beings or plants, when the foreign gene combination is likely to break away and what effect it will have in the human body or plants,” said Eric Mgendi, ActionAid’s international coordinator for communications in Africa told IPS.

Several GM crop varieties have been designed to have a higher resistance to herbicides, allowing farmers to use greater quantities to kill weeds while sparing their crops. Mgendi claims that GMOs have accelerated the emergence of super weeds - weeds with strong resistance to herbicides and pesticides.

Campaigners say the increased use of pesticides - whether to control these weeds or as part of growing GM crops - contributes to damaging the productivity of farmland over time.

Washed into rivers or lakes, these herbicides have been known to affect plant and animal species - a case in point is the heavy use of chemicals in the flower farms in Naivasha, Kenya and the effect on fish and other animal species in Lake Naivasha, where fish with two heads have been found.

Prof Alhassan however brushes aside the fears expressed against GM crops. “GM crops are safer than non-GM crops because they go through stringent measures. Those who have expressed misgivings about it are only doing so because of fears of the unkown.”

He admits that GM technology could be misused. “It is possible that someone can move one gene from one crop to another to cause problems.
But that is why regulatory bodies are set up to ensure that the technology is properly guarded.”

Prof Alhassan said conventional farming is not without its problems.
“Maize farmers, for example, use sprays on their crops and these chemicals pollute the atmosphere as well affect the health of the farmers over a long period of use.” But, he says, this has not prevented the use of the chemicals but rather work continues to improve their safe usage.

As the arguments rage on, the Ghanaian population seems to be largely indifferent.

At Makola Market in Accra, one could spot various brands of soy cooking oil on sale. Adwoa Antwi, one trader who obviously did not know the meaning of GM, had a few gallons on display.

“For me, it is just cooking oil that l am selling and l do not know what is written on it.” She admitted that those who come to buy do not bother to read the label.

Thus, FoE’s campaign against the introduction of GM in Ghana seems to be facing an uphill task. Very little understanding by the population on whose behalf they are fighting, coupled with reduced funding for their work in Ghana by FoE International as a result of the global credit crunch - while their opponents continue to enjoy increased support from the global bio-tech industry - it is becoming clear that FoE may not win the fight.

In spite of the work that the Ghanaian authorities have already put in place to introduce GM crops in the country, Agyepong is undeterred. “We are determined to fight and push so that the government does not pass the Biosafety Bill,” she says. “We would continue to do our advocacy work to alert the public to know that the country is moving towards uncharted waters.”

________________________________________________________

Farmers reveal: The truth about GM corn
By Adam Jesus B. Bering
ROXAS CITY – A forum on the case study on the socio-economic impact of Genetically Modified (GM) Corn or RR Corn in Capiz was held last April 30, 2009 at the Roblee Hall, Filamer Christian College sponsored by the Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) –Visayas in partnership with the FCC-National Service Training Program (NSTP).

The half-day forum was attended by farmer-leaders from Negros, Antique, Iloilo and Capiz; LGU representatives from Maayon and Dumarao; the academe represented by the students of Filamer Christian College and PAFCI-Capiz.
MASIPAG-Visayas conducted the economic study on the cultivation of Hybrid & Round-Up Ready (RR) Corn in two selected major corn planting areas in two municipalities of Capiz, namely Dumarao and Maayon for the first cropping (May-September 2007) and second cropping (November-March 2008) of 2007. The over-all objective of the study was to determine the cost and benefit of GM corn production in Capiz. The results of the study will serve also as a guide for farmers and LGUs who look for sustainable alternatives to address the problems of food security and safety.
Ms. Eloisa Bosito, MASIPAG-National Secretariat presented & discussed the results of the socio-economic study which shows that almost all of the farmers in both municipalities are dependent with the local financiers in the area, with 57% of the corn farmers in Dumarao are paying an interest of 7% per month. In Maayon, most of the farmers are paying as high as 10% per month. On the health aspect, most farmers do not wear protective gears while planting and spraying pesticides thus the results showed that some of the RR corn farmers suffered eye & skin irritation, dizziness and respiratory problems. In summary, the study shows RR corn farmers incurred, high cost of production (seeds, fertilizers & herbicides), lower yield & net income, cycle of indebtedness and loss of control over the technology and high health risk with the use of Roundup herbicide.
MASIPAG-Visayas has recommended among others to intensify awareness-raising among the farmers and the general public, conduct lobbying among the LGUs on the entry of GMOs and/or protect the farmers and the environment, call the government through DA to suspend further GMO releases and address the issues on health, environment and livelihood and strengthen Sustainable Agriculture practices in the community especially regarding traditional corn production. Replication of the study in other areas and conduct of a political-economic study to determine the impact of the GM technology on farmers’ control over seeds and resources were further recommended by MASIPAG-Visayas.
As recalled, the city government of Bacolod supports the campaign of the province against the entry of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) products through city ordinance no. 07, series of 2007 which bans the entry of all GMO products in order to institute “stringent measures towards the protection of biodiversity and attainment of the status of Negros as an Organic Food Island in Asia”. It is hoped that the province of Capiz will also be like Bacolod City in Negros in promoting GMO-free province in Panay Island.

http://www.thenewstoday.info/2009/05/11/farmers.reveal.the.truth.about.gm.corn.html

________________________________________________________________________

Why Are Indian Farmers Committing Suicide and How Can We Stop This Tragedy?

By Vandana Shiva, Huffington Post
Posted on May 18, 2009, Printed on May 19, 2009 http://www.alternet.org/story/140104/

In a land where reincarnation is a commonly held belief, where the balance sheet of life is sorted out over lifetimes, where resilience and recovery has been the characteristic of the "kisan," the peasant cultivation, why are Indian farmers committing suicide on a mass scale?

200,000 farmers have ended their lives since 1997.

Farmers' suicides are the most tragic and dramatic symptom of the crisis of survival faced by Indian peasants.

Rapid increase in indebtedness is at the root of farmers' taking their lives. Debt is a reflection of a negative economy. Two factors have transformed agriculture from a positive economy into a negative economy for peasants: the rising of costs of production and the falling prices of farm commodities. Both these factors are rooted in the policies of trade liberalization and corporate globalization.

In 1998, the World Bank's structural adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto and Syngenta. The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds, which need fertilizers and pesticides and cannot be saved.

Corporations prevent seed savings through patents and by engineering seeds with non-renewable traits. As a result, poor peasants have to buy new seeds for every planting season and what was traditionally a free resource, available by putting aside a small portion of the crop, becomes a commodity. This new expense increases poverty and leads to indebtness.

The shift from saved seed to corporate monopoly of the seed supply also represents a shift from biodiversity to monoculture in agriculture. The district of Warangal in Andhra Pradesh used to grow diverse legumes, millets, and oilseeds. Now the imposition of cotton monocultures has led to the loss of the wealth of farmer's breeding and nature's evolution.

Monocultures and uniformity increase the risk of crop failure, as diverse seeds adapted to diverse to eco-systems are replaced by the rushed introduction of uniform and often untested seeds into the market.
When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in 2002, the farmers lost 1 billion rupees due to crop failure. Instead of 1,500 kilos per acre as promised by the company, the harvest was as low as 200 kilos per acre.
Instead of incomes of 10,000 rupees an acre, farmers ran into losses of 6,400 rupees an acre. In the state of Bihar, when farm-saved corn seed was displaced by Monsanto's hybrid corn, the entire crop failed, creating 4 billion rupees in losses and increased poverty for desperately poor farmers. Poor peasants of the South cannot survive seed monopolies. The crisis of suicides shows how the survival of small farmers is incompatible with the seed monopolies of global corporations.

The second pressure Indian farmers are facing is the dramatic fall in prices of farm produce as a result of the WTO's free trade policies. The WTO rules for trade in agriculture are, in essence, rules for dumping.
They have allowed wealthy countries to increase agribusiness subsidies while preventing other countries from protecting their farmers from artificially cheap imported produce. Four hundred billion dollars in subsidies combined with the forced removal of import restriction is a ready-made recipe for farmer suicide. Global wheat prices have dropped from $216 a ton in 1995 to $133 a ton in 2001; cotton prices from $98.2 a ton in 1995 to $49.1 a ton in 2001; Soya bean prices from $273 a ton in 1995 to $178 a ton. This reduction is due not to a change in productivity, but to an increase in subsidies and an increase in market monopolies controlled by a handful of agribusiness corporations.

The region in India with the highest level of farmers suicides is the Vidharbha region in Maharashtra -- 4000 suicides per year, 10 per day.
This is also the region with the highest acreage of Monsanto's GMO Bt cotton. Monsanto's GM seeds create a suicide economy by transforming seed from a renewable resource to a non-renewable input which must be bought every year at high prices. Cotton seed used to cost Rs 7/kg.
Bt-cotton seeds were sold at Rs 17,000/kg. Indigenous cotton varieties can be intercropped with food crops. Bt-cotton can only be grown as a monoculture. Indigenous cotton is rain fed. Bt-cotton needs irrigation.
Indigenous varieties are pest resistant. Bt-cotton, even though promoted as resistant to the boll worm, has created new pests, and to control these new pests, farmers are using 13 times more pesticides then they were using prior to introduction of Bt-cotton. And finally, Monsanto sells its GMO seeds on fraudulent claims of yields of 1500/kg/year when farmers harvest 300-400 kg/year on an average. High costs and unreliable output make for a debt trap, and a suicide economy.

While Monsanto pushes the costs of cultivation up, agribusiness subsidies drive down the price farmers get for their produce.

Cotton producers in the US are given a subsidy of $4 billion annually.
This has artificially brought down cotton prices, allowing the US to capture world markets previously accessible to poor African countries such as Burkina Faso, Benin, and Mali. This subsidy of $230 per acre in the US is untenable for the African farmers. African cotton farmers are losing $250 million every year. That is why small African countries walked out of the Cancun negotiations, leading to the collapse of the WTO ministerial.

The rigged prices of globally traded agriculture commodities steal from poor peasants of the South. A study carried out by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) shows that due to falling farm prices, Indian peasants are losing $26 billion annually.
This is a burden their poverty does not allow them t bear. As debts increase -- unpayable from farm proceeds -- farmers are compelled to sell a kidney or even commit suicide. Seed saving gives farmers life.
Seed monopolies rob farmers of life.

Farmers suicides in the state of Chattisgarh have recently been before in the news. 1593 farmers committed suicide in Chattisgarh in 2007.
Before 2000 no farmers suicides are reported in the state.

Chattisgarh is the Centre of Diversity of the indice varieties of rice.
More than 200,000 rices used to grow in India. This is where eminent rice scientists Dr. Richaria did his collections and showed that tribals had bred many rices with higher yields than the green Revolution varieties.

Today the rice farming of Chattisgarh is under assault. When indigenous rice is replaced with green Revolution varieties, irrigation becomes necessary. Under globalization pressures, rice is anyway a lower priority than exotic vegetables. The farmers are sold hybrid seeds, the seeds need heavy inputs of fertilizers and pesticides, as well as intensive irrigation. And crop failure is frequent. This pushes farmers into debt and suicide.

Chattisgarh is also a prime target for growing of Jatropha for biofuel.
Tribals farms are being forcefully appropriated for Jatropha plantations, aggravating the food and livelihood crisis in Chattisgarh.
The diesel demand of the automobile industry is given a priority above the food needs of the poor.

The suicide economy of industrialized, globalised agriculture is suicidal at 3 levels -- it is suicidal for farmers, it is suicidal for the poor who are derived food, and it is suicidal at the level of the human species as we destroy the natural capital of seed, biodiversity, soil and water on which our biological survival depends.

The suicide economy is not an inevitability. Navdanya <http://www.navdanya.org/index.htm>  has started a Seeds of Hope campaign to stop farmers suicides. The transition from seeds of suicide to seeds of hope includes:

*     A shift from GMO and non renewable seeds to organic, open
pollinated seed varieties which farmers can save and share
*     A shift from chemical farming to organic farming
*     A shift from unfair trade based on false prices to fair trade
based on real and just prices

The farmers who have made this shift are earning 10 times more than the farmers growing Monsanto's Bt-cotton.

Activist and physicist Vandana Shiva is founder and director of the Research Foundation for Science,

Technology, and Natural Resource Policy in New Delhi. She is author of more than three hundred papers in leading journals and numerous books,

including Monocultures of the Mind: Biodiversity, Biotechnology, and the Third World and Earth Democracy.

Vandana is a founding director of International Forum on Globalization.

© 2009 Huffington Post All rights reserved.

Alarm raised as GMO foods hit market  published on 14/05/2009 By Peter Thatiah

It is now official. Kenyans could be eating contaminated maize unfit even for animals. Furthermore, a big chunk of the grains are genetically modified organism (GMO) products.

But so shrouded is the affair that Kenyans do not know just yet what they are in for.

Two months after the controversial
Kenya  Biosafety Act 2009 was signed into law, it is emerging that the country was not ready for the big leap.

It was Prof Oyiecho Olweny, an Assistant Minister, who said, five months ago that Kenyans were eating imported genetically modified foods.

A senior official at the Ministry of Agriculture, who did not wish to be named, confirmed to this writer that some of the maize grains recently imported as a measure to curb the ongoing famine were genetically modified.

But do Kenyans know the risks of eating GMOs? Are there legal rights guaranteed to Kenyan citizens in the event that the GMOs cause health and other risks?

Early this week, Health Minister Beth Mugo held a press conference to state that we have contaminated maize in the market.

http://www.eastandard.net/images/thursday/nh140509_01.jpg

A MAIZE FARM. It is suspected that there is an influx of genetically modified and contaminated maize grains in the country.

Kenyans are unwittingly eating the maize, most of which is said to be genetically modified.

Worse still, the minister said the maize was unfit for humans and animals and that the products were scurried out of the port in secrecy.

But Prime Minister Raila Odinga yesterday told Parliament the said consignment was still at the port.

Experts in law, scientists and environmentalists are now warning that Kenya could end up paying a heavy price.

Kenya is the only country in the region to embrace GMO technology.

To the common man, GMO is one of those subjects that are better left to university professors and other armchair theory mongers. But the GMOs are finally here with us and all indications are that it is the common man who knows nothing about it who will be the first casualty.

Mr Job Muchemi, an environmental lawyer, says that even in developed economies, particularly in Europe, the introduction of GMOs has been an exercise littered with sinkholes at every corner.

Though GMO grains are much cheaper than conventional ones, he warns that there will be a human price to pay.

Mr Samuel Ochieng of Consumer Information Network says the risks of the GMO foods are aggravated by the fact that Kenyan citizens were never sufficiently educated on the matter.

The campaign, mooted by Agriculture Minister William Ruto in September last year to make Kenyans appreciate GMOs, fizzled out as soon as it started.

http://www.eastandard.net/images/thursday/nh140509_02.jpg

A farmer displays harvested maize. Photos: File/Standard

But what exactly are the health risks associated with using GMOs, especially for the poor majority who have no access to specialised scientific information?

Says Ochieng: "A scientist can remove a gene from a wild nut and then plant it in the maize to enhance its protein properties. In this case, the scientist will endanger the lives of those allergic to nuts. Someone allergic to nuts will not know that he is consuming maize made of elements from nuts."

Culture and religion

Instructively, food is not just about science and agriculture. It is also about culture and religion. In GMO technology, an animal gene can be planted into a plant and vice-versa.

This, the experts caution, can be unsettling for people who are vegetarians in a case where they don’t know whether they are consuming substances with animal tissue.

Where abstaining from certain substances is imposed by religion, the dangers of freedom to choose are real.

Muslims will not know whether the rice they buy from shops is contaminated with pig genes or not.

Likewise, vegetarian Hindus will not tell which items in a supermarket rack contain genes from cows.

Muchemi says that while the above can be mitigated by proper dissemination of information and intensive education, this has not been done.

Indeed, he cautions, there are very few countries that can be able to do this, and certainly none in Africa. The Kenya Biosafety Act 2009, he insists, is just a document and we do not even have institutions to make it work.

He says: "We have the National Biosafety Committee housed by the National Council of Science and Technology. This is just a committee, which has neither the apparatus nor the staff to do the job. We should have developed the capacity to regulate the GMO technology before we created a law on it.

He adds: "Going as far as allowing GMO maize into the country is one risky step gone too far. All legalities should have checks and balances and this is one thing that Kenya has made legal without the benefit of installing requisite checks and balances."

According to a senior officer at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Biotechnology Centre, the organisation is experimenting with GMO foods at their Kiboko, Alupe, Busia, Kabete and Mwea research centres.

Maize varieties

Syngenta, Melinda and Bill Gates and the Rockefeller foundations have funded this project.

The project focuses on maize varieties that are envisioned to have an in-built ability to resist pests without the application of insecticides. They will be released to farmers next year.

But Ochieng sees something sinister in this. He says: "The fact that a certain variety of maize is able to resist all types of pests means that some foreign compounds with strong chemical elements have been introduced to that particular grain. Eating these foods everyday, means that there will be over-injection of these chemicals into the consumers’
systems.

He continues: "We have seen this in pharmaceuticals, where GMO technology is entrenched. On the other hand, allowing the same into conventional foodstuff means increased cases of people developing resistance to medicines."

He says Kenya may never be able to mitigate the effects of such maladies on a widespread scale.

Growers in U.S., Canada, Australia back GMO wheat
Thu May 14, 2009 7:56pm BST
By Carey Gillam

KANSAS CITY, Mo., May 14 (Reuters) - Farm groups from the world's top wheat-exporting nations on Thursday said they had reached an agreement to support a "synchronized" commercialization of biotech traits in wheat.
Though any market roll-out of a genetically altered wheat would be years away, the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) said Thursday it had signed up grain growers in Canada and Australia in a deal that would align the nations against any international backlash if and when a biotech wheat was introduced.
The united front also was intended as an invitation to biotech companies to push forward with biotech wheat development.
"This is a big, long-term issue for producers," said NAWG CEO Daren Coppock. "We agree it is in our best interest to work together. And we are trying to send a strong signal to developers so they can move ahead."
The key food crop currently lacks any genetically altered seed options, unlike corn and soybeans, which have been tinkered with by a variety of biotech agricultural companies.
Biotech strains of corn and soybeans that resist pests and tolerate herbicide field treatments now dominate the U.S. market and are growing in share around the world.
Wheat farmers who have eyed advancements made in other crops say similar genetically altered opportunities for wheat could help them increase yields and become more profitable.
Tops on the wish list are drought-tolerant wheat and wheat that makes more efficient use of nitrogen.
"Wheat is not keeping pace with corn and soy yield increases," said North Dakota Grain Growers Association president Byron Richard. "We have to be competitive with other commodities."
In addition to NAWG, the groups signing onto the agreement include U.S. Wheat Associates, the North American Millers' Association, the Grain Growers of Canada, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and the Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission. Australian signatories include Grains Council of Australia, Grain Growers Association and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia.
It was five years ago this month that Monsanto Co (MON.N: Quote, Profile, Research). shelved an herbicide-tolerant "Roundup Ready" wheat that would have been the first biotech wheat in the world.
The company was facing a storm of protest from U.S. wheat buyers, who threatened to boycott all U.S. wheat if a biotech strain was rolled out. Growers and export players feared a loss of customers and shied away from backing the plan.
Discussions about genetically altering wheat remain sensitive in many parts of the world, including major export markets in Europe and Asia. Biotech crop critics argue genetically altering crops, particularly those used for food, can have harmful ramifications on human and animal health and on the environment.
Still, acceptance is growing, said wheat growers.
"There are a lot of benefits that come with biotech wheat -- higher production, less reliance on pesticides, and better quality wheat," said Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association president Kevin Bender. "Acceptance is growing for it." (Reporting by Carey Gillam; editing by Jim Marshall)

Genetically modified food imports an abomination

By RACHAEL WAKIO Posted Wednesday, May 13 2009 at 17:34

The wave of civilisation witnessed in the last 200 years is a direct result of the application of science and technology. From communications and travel to construction and manufacturing, the juggernaut marches on.
But throw in food and the situation becomes very ugly.

The science of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was devised to usher in a new era of food sufficiency the world over. Instructively, the masses edging the scientists forward did not know that it is not the work of science to determine what we eat, why we eat, when we eat or even how we eat.

From time immemorial, food has been about sustenance, health, culture and religion. The four have marched hand-in- hand from the Stone Age.
And the age of the silicon chip is not about to stop it simply because it can’t.

Let us look at what this means to Kenya in our present circumstances.

FIRST, IT IS NO LONGER A SECRET that some politicians have connived to import and dump into the country GMO maize in the guise of mitigating the effects of famine.

Early this week, Public Health minister Beth Mugo told the country that the contaminated maize had already been condemned by her ministry, and that it was not even fit for animals. She also said the maize was hurried from the port in the secrecy of darkness. .

Forget about the Kenya Biosafety Act, which was signed into law two months ago. The Kenya Biosafety Authority, the supposed regulator stipulated in the Act, is not even in place.

Right now, we only have a small body known as the National Biosafety Committee in the Ministry of Higher Education pretending to do the work the authority is supposed to do.

Simply put, the committee, which is staffed by bureaucrats, does not have the wherewithal to do the work of a key national regulatory authority. Food is a universal product and Kenyans have the right to know exactly where they are being taken by GMO proponents.

Indeed, they were supposed to be asked if they wanted GMO technology in the first place. This did not happen. They were not even told what the whole technology was all about. As a result, there are many sections of society in Kenya who are at risk of GMOs.

Intermixing of genes from various plants or animals into another element means that any Kenyan with an allergy to a certain substance will no longer know what he or she is eating. This is a grave danger because medical studies have proved that some allergies can be fatal.

If you are allergic to pumpkins, how will you know that the maize flour at the supermarket is not derived from maize with genes extracted from a pumpkin to enhance its nutrient content?What about the Muslim who will not know what product contains the gene of a pig? What about the Hindu who will not eat cow products?

This technology can remove a gene of a horse and plant it in sorghum, which has actually been done successfully. The prospect that we face today is that the cultural and religious contexts of food as we know them are being altered in laboratories.

Besides religious freedoms and other sacrosanct cultural tenets, the proliferation of GMOs will bring about unprecedented health complications.

Let us ask ourselves why advanced economies like China, France, Germany and Canada have banned GMOs. Why are these economies citing regulatory problems, and yet they are light years ahead of us in terms of capacity?

IN THE WORLD OF PHARMACEUTIC-als where genetic technology is rampant, we have already seen individuals developing resistance to medicine because of constant use of GMO-induced drugs.

In GMO, chemical implants are introduced into plant and animal genes to enhance their capacity to fight insects and infections. Bringing the same technology to farming means that we will be eating chemical-laden food every day, thus creating even greater resistance to drugs.

We have not even mentioned peasant farmers, who, thanks to the terminator technology, will be at the mercy of seed manufacturing conglomerates. Hasn’t anyone in high office realised that we have just made an awful decision?

Ms Wakio works with an international development agency in Nairobi.

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

Immediate Moratorium on All Genetically Modified Foods Recommended

 

IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Los Angeles, CA. ) On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[i]  They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[ii]

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[iii] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[iv]

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[v] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[vi] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[vii] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[viii]

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[ix]

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

Food designed to produce toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.
The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[x] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.
Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[xi],[xii]
The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[xiii] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[xiv]

GMOs provoke immune reactions

AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”[xv] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[xvi] A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[xvii]
GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[xviii] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[xix] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[xx] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[xxi] In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[xxii]

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[xxiii]

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks.[xxiv] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[xxv]

Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[xxvi] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[xxvii] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.

Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases

AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[xxviii]

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[xxix]

Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[xxx]

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”

Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.

If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.

 

International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t have the data to show that their products are safe.

________________________________________

The Basics:

What's a GMO?

A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another in an attempt to obtain a desired trait or characteristic, hence they are also known as transgenic organisms. This process may be called either Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM); they are one and the same.

But haven’t growers been grafting trees, breeding animals, and hybridizing seeds for years?

Genetic engineering is completely different from traditional breeding and carries unique risks.

In traditional breeding it is possible to mate a pig with another pig to get a new variety, but is not possible to mate a pig with a potato or a mouse. Even when species that may seem to be closely related do succeed in breeding, the offspring are usually infertile—a horse, for example, can mate with a donkey, but the offspring (a mule) is sterile.

With genetic engineering, scientists can breach species barriers set up by nature. For example, they have spliced fish genes into tomatoes. The results are plants (or animals) with traits that would be virtually impossible to obtain with natural processes, such as crossbreeding or grafting.

What combinations have been tried?

It is now possible for plants to be engineered with genes taken from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Scientists have worked on some interesting combinations:

*     Spider genes were inserted into goat DNA, in hopes that the goat
milk would contain spider web protein for use in bulletproof vests.
*     Cow genes turned pigskins into cowhides.
*     Jellyfish genes lit up pigs’ noses in the dark.
*     Artic fish genes gave tomatoes and strawberries tolerance to
frost.
*     Potatoes that glowed in the dark when they needed watering.
*     Human genes were inserted into corn to produce spermicide.

Current field trials include:

*     Corn engineered with human genes (Dow)
*     Sugarcane engineered with human genes (Hawaii Agriculture
Research Center)
*     Corn engineered with jellyfish genes (Stanford University)
*     Tobacco engineered with lettuce genes (University of Hawaii)
*     Rice engineered with human genes (Applied Phytologics)
*     Corn engineered with hepatitis virus genes (Prodigene)

What is a gene?

Every plant and animal is made of cells, each of which has a center called a nucleus. Inside every nucleus there are strings of DNA, half of which is normally inherited from the mother and half from the father.
Short sequences of DNA are called genes. These genes operate in complex networks that are finely regulated to enable the processes of living organisms to happen in the right place and at the right time.

How is genetic engineering done?

Because living organisms have natural barriers to protect themselves against the introduction of DNA from a different species, genetic engineers have to find ways to force the DNA from one organism into another. These methods include:

*     Using viruses or bacteria to "infect" animal or plant cells with
the new DNA.
*     Coating DNA onto tiny metal pellets, and firing it with a
special gun into the cells.
*     Injecting the new DNA into fertilized eggs with a very fine
needle.
*     Using electric shocks to create holes in the membrane covering
sperm, and then forcing the new DNA into the sperm through these holes.

Is genetic engineering precise?

The technology of genetic engineering is currently very crude. It is not possible to insert a new gene with any accuracy, and the transfer of new genes can disrupt the finely controlled network of DNA in an organism.

Current understanding of the way in which DNA works is extremely limited, and any change to the DNA of an organism at any point can have side effects that are impossible to predict or control. The new gene could, for example, alter chemical reactions within the cell or disturb cell functions. This could lead to instability, the creation of new toxins or allergens, and changes in nutritional value.

Does the biotech industry hold any promise?

Genetic modification of plants is not the only biotechnology. The study of DNA does hold promise for many potential applications, including medicine. However, the current technology of GM foods is based on obsolete information and theory, and is prone to dangerous side effects.
Economic interests have pushed it onto the market too soon.

Moreover, molecular marker technologies - so called Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) used with conventional breeding shows much promise for developing improved crop varieties, without the potentially dangerous side effects of direct genetic modification.

GMOs in Foods:

What kinds of traits have been added to food crops?

Although there are attempts to increase nutritional benefits or productivity, the two main traits that have been added to date are herbicide tolerance and the ability of the plant to produce its own pesticide.  These results have no health benefit, only economic benefit.

Herbicide tolerance lets the farmer spray weed-killer directly on the
crop without killing it.   

Crops such as Bt cotton produce pesticides inside the plant.  This kills or deters insects, saving the farmer from having to spray pesticides.
The plants themselves are toxic, and not just to insects.  Farmers in India, who let their sheep graze on Bt cotton plants after the harvest, saw thousands of sheep die!

Why do genetically engineered foods have antibiotic resistant genes in them?

The techniques used to transfer genes have a very low success rate, so the genetic engineers attach "marker genes" that are resistant to antibiotics to help them to find out which cells have taken up the new DNA. These marker genes are resistant to antibiotics that are commonly used in human and veterinary medicine. Some scientists believe that eating GE food containing these marker genes could encourage gut bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance.

What are the problems created through genetic engineering of food and crops?

Genetic engineers continually encounter unintended side effects – GM plants create toxins, react to weather differently, contain too much or too little nutrients, become diseased or malfunction and die.  When foreign genes are inserted, dormant genes may be activated or the functioning of genes altered, creating new or unknown proteins, or increasing or decreasing the output of existing proteins inside the plant.  The effects of consuming these new combinations of proteins are unknown.

What foods are GM?

Currently commercialized GM crops in the U.S. include soy (89%), cotton (83%), canola (80%), corn (61%), Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%), zucchini and yellow squash (small amount), and tobacco (Quest® brand).
There are currently plans to grow GM sugar beets in 2008.

What are other sources of GMOs?

Products derived from the above, including oils from all four, soy protein, soy lecithin, cornstarch, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup among others. Also:

*     meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that have eaten GM
feed (and the majority of the GM corn and soy is used for feed);
*     dairy products from cows injected with rbGH (a GM hormone);
*     food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents,
including the sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet®) and rennet used to make hard cheeses; and
*     honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen.

The Health Dangers:

What are the potential dangers of eating GM foods?

There are a number of dangers that broadly fall into the categories of potential toxins, allergens, carcinogens, new diseases, antibiotic resistant diseases, and nutritional problems. 

View
<http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/GeneticRoulette/HealthRisksofGMF
oodsSummaryDebate/index.cfm>  all 65 health risks of GM foods, excerpted from Jeffrey Smith's comprehensive book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.  Other References <http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showPage/index.cfm?objectID=gmf
ree,4944> 

Hasn’t research shown GM foods to be safe?

No. The only feeding study done with humans showed that GMOs survived inside the stomach of the people eating GMO food.  No follow-up studies were done.

Various feeding studies in animals have resulted in potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, damaged immune systems, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy or increased density of the liver, odd shaped cell nuclei and other unexplained anomalies, false pregnancies and higher death rates.

But aren’t the plants chemically the same, whether or not they are GM?

Most tests can’t determine the differences at the level of the DNA. And, even if they appear to be the same, eyewitness reports from all over North American describe how several types of animals, including cows, pigs, geese, elk, deer, squirrels, and rats, when given a choice, avoid eating GM foods.

Haven’t people been eating GM foods without any ill effect?

The biotech industry says that millions have been eating GM foods without ill effect. This is misleading. No one monitors human health impacts of GM foods. If the foods were creating health problems in the US population, it might take years or decades before we identified the cause.

What indications are there that GM foods are causing problems?

Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent.

In March 2001, the Center for Disease Control reported that food is responsible for twice the number of illnesses in the U.S. compared to estimates just seven years earlier. This increase roughly corresponds to the period when Americans have been eating GM food.

Without follow-up tests, which neither the industry or government are doing, we can’t be absolutely sure if genetic engineering was the cause.
What about GM hormones in milk?

Milk from rBGH-treated cows contains an increased amount of the hormone IGF-1, which is one of the highest risk factors associated with breast and prostate cancer, but no one is tracking this in relation to cancer rates.

Why do genetically engineered foods have antibiotic resistant genes in them?

A. The techniques used to transfer genes have a very low success rate, so the genetic engineers attach "marker genes" that are resistant to antibiotics to help them to find out which cells have taken up the new DNA. That way scientist can then douse the experimental GMO in antibiotics and if it lives, they have successful altered the genes. The marker genes are resistant to antibiotics that are commonly used in human and veterinary medicine. Some scientists believe that eating GE food containing these marker genes could encourage gut bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance.

But is there any documented instance of adverse effects of GMOs on people?

One epidemic was rare, serious, and fast acting, and therefore more easily discovered. Called EMS, it was traced to a GM brand of the food supplement L-tryptophan. In the 1980's, the contaminated brand killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness or disability in about 5,000-10,000 others.

Why are children particularly susceptible to the effects of GM foods?  

 Children face the greatest risk from the potential dangers of GM foods for the same reasons that they also face the greatest risk from other hazards like pesticides and radiation, these include:

*     Young, fast-developing bodies are influenced most.
*     Children are more susceptible to allergies.
*     Children are more susceptible to problems with milk.
*     Children are more susceptible to nutritional problems.
*     Children are in danger from antibiotic resistant diseases.

How dangerous, or potentially dangerous, are GM foods relative to other food dangers, e.g., pesticides, irradiation, additives, preservatives?

Since so little research has been done on the safety of GM foods, it is not possible to rank its risks. Unlike the others, GM crops persist in the environment, and may continue to pose risks to health for centuries.

In addition, transfer of transgenes to gut bacteria may present long-term chronic exposure, since the foreign protein may continued to be produced inside of us after we no longer consume the GM food.

Dangers to the environment and traditional agriculture:

What is the effect of growing GM crops on the environment?

Studies have shown that pesticide-producing crops contaminate nearby streams, possibly affecting aquatic life. They may harm beneficial insects too.

As weeds adapt to herbicides, they develop resistance and what are recalled “super weeds” can evolve. When that happens, herbicide use increases and the benefits of herbicide resistant crops are diminished, if not lost.

Can the growing of GM crops effect nearby crops?

Pollen from GM crops can contaminate nearby crops of the same type, except for soy, which does not cross-pollinate.  In fact, virtually all heritage varieties of corn in Mexico (the origin of all corn) have been found to have some contamination. Canola and cotton also cross-pollinate.

Why is there an effort to create GM-free agricultural zones?

Using identity preservation (IP), farmers keep crop varieties separate from others to meet purity requirements of their buyers. Contamination is a key challenge to IP growers. Unwanted varieties may cross-pollinate or get mixed up in the seed, harvest equipment, or during storage and transport.

Some farm regions create entire zones that exclude unwanted varieties, where all the farms, and if possible all collection and distribution points, only handle approved grain.

Have any local efforts in the US been successful?

There are local efforts throughout the U.S. that are raising public awareness, changing laws, and creating commitments to non-GM ingredients. Most notably, voters in Mendocino and Marin Counties in California passed ballot initiative to ban GM crops.

Officials in Trinity County and Arcada California have passed ordinances banning the outdoor cultivation of GM crops as well. But since then, a California law was passed prohibiting this type of local initiatives.

In March 2008, voters at the Montville, Maine, annual town meeting overwhelmingly passed a binding ordinance banning the cultivation of  GM crops in their community.

Is it possible that organically grown crops can be infected by GM genes?

Yes. Organic standards do not allow the use of GM seeds and therefore steps are taken to try to prevent contamination. Tests are not required, although some vigilant organic companies require them. According to the organic standards, contamination by cross-pollination is not disallowed, but some companies reject contaminated product above some small amount such as 0.1%. 

Organic canola farmers in Canada sued biotech companies, since cross-pollination has made it impossible for them to grow organic, non-GM canola.

Is the Natural Foods Industry doing something to insure the purity of its products?

Right now there are efforts underway for an industry wide clean up of foods labeled organic and non-GMO. A handful of noble companies took it upon themselves to ensure that consumers could rest assured that their organic and non-GMO foods are truly free of modified genes. They established The Non-GMO Project, which has created an industry-wide consensus-based set of standards and a third-party verification process with testing for GMO content.

Companies began to enroll their products in the spring of 2008 and the first “non-GMO” seals for companies who fully comply with the protocols will be issued in 2009.

Government Regulation:

Q. Hasn’t the FDA said that GM foods are safe?

The biotech industry claims that the FDA has thoroughly evaluated GM foods and found them safe. This is untrue. The FDA does not require safety studies. Instead, if the makers of the GM foods claim that they are safe, the agency has no further questions.

Q. Didn’t the scientists at the FDA study GM foods themselves?

No.  The FDA relies solely on information supplied by the biotech companies.

Q. What kind of information did the companies provide?

Calgene, the makers of the first GM crop, the FlavrSavr tomato, was the only company to submit detailed raw data from animal feeding studies to the FDA.  The rest provide only summaries and conclusions. Industry research can be rigged; data often is omitted or distorted.

In the FlavrSavr tests, lab rats refused to eat the tomatoes and had to be force-fed. Several developed stomach lesions, and seven of forty died within two weeks. Still, the tomato was approved, but has since been taken off the market.

Q. Based on the information that was supplied, did the FDA scientist have concerns?

Agency scientists did warn that GM foods might create toxins, allergies, nutritional problems, and new diseases that might be difficult to identify. Internal FDA memos reveal that the scientists urged their superiors to require long-term safety testing to catch these hard-to-detect side effects.

Q. What did the FDA do about these concerns?

Nothing was done that would protect consumers.  In fact, in the case of genetically modified bovine growth hormone, some FDA scientists who expressed concerns were harassed, stripped of responsibilities, or fired. The remaining whistleblowers had to write an anonymous letter to Congress complaining of fraud and conflict of interest at the agency

Q. How could the government approve dangerous foods?

A close examination reveals that industry manipulation and political collusion – not sound science – was the driving force.

The FDA official in charge ignored all warnings of the FDA staff scientists. The official, a former outside attorney for Monsanto, was a political appointee specifically to a new FDA post on GM policy, and left shortly after to become vice president at Monsanto.

Q. Why aren’t foods with GMOs at least labeled here?

The same political influence and money that got them past the FDA has prevented any labeling laws from being passed.  However, the Democratic Presidential candidate has pledged to support labeling laws if elected.

Q. So do the biotech companies always get everything they want?

No. The biotech companies have fallen far short of their goals due to consumer resistance. The GM potatoes and tomatoes were taken off the market, and other GM crops, although approved, were never commercialized.

Concerned consumers in Europe were able to get major companies to commit to eliminate GMOs within one week.  This was done with only a small percentage of the overall population.  Businesses do not want to lose even a portion of their customer base.  Everyone can vote with his or her pocketbook!

In 1998 the industry tried to get the USDA to let GM products pass as organic. During the public comment period, the Department received over 275,000 irate letters of protest from citizens, a public response unprecedented in the USDA's history. Thanks to this public protest, GM products cannot be labeled organic in the USA.

Around the World

Q. What about in neighboring countries?

In Canada, government scientists also complained that they were being pressured to approve the GM hormone, which is injected into cows to increase milk supply. They were concerned about human health impacts.
They testified that the drugs maker, Monsanto, offered them a bribe of
$1-2 million to approve it. They also reported that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet in a government office.

Mexico has resisted GMOs, but contamination has still occurred.

Other stories of pressure, bribes, and threatened whistleblowers are reported through the history of GM foods and their approval, research, and promotion around the world.

Q. What is happening with GM foods in the rest of the world?

A. All over the world, regions and even nations are demanding an end to GM crop cultivation. Twenty-two countries in Europe have regions wanting to be GM-free. States in Australia, regions in New Zealand and Brazil, the countries of Venezuela, Zambia, Sudan, Angola, and others, all want to be GM-free. Thus, world markets are shrinking.

In 2009 ,Germany joined France, Hungary, Italy, Greece, Austria, Poland and Romania in baning Monsanto's Mon 810 GM corn because of its documented hazards to biodiversity and human health. In 2007 over three million Italians signed a petition, declaring their opposition to GM crops in their country. In Europe over 175 regions and over 4,500 municipalities have declared themselves GM-free zones. In Spain alone this includes over 50 municipalities and regions like Asturias, the Canary Islands and the Basque country.

Europe has greater rejection of GMOs due to a more balanced reporting by their press on the health and environmental dangers. In Europe, at least
174 regions, more than 4,500 councils and local governments have declared themselves GM free.

Q. Have any GM foods been banned?

The rules of the World Trade Organization (which the US and other 150 countries are members of) explicitly prohibit countries from banning GM products. Therefore, countries that ban them do so at great risk. If this weren't the case, no doubt many countries would already have done so.

Some countries have banned GM crops entirely or not approved certain GM crops that are approved elsewhere.

In the US, GM wheat was not approved when wheat farmers banned together because they were concerned that contamination would seriously hurt exports.  So the reason was economic, not safety.

_________________________________________

2009 GM Crop Fact File
Institute for Responsible Technology
ARE GM CROPS TAKING OVER GLOBAL AGRICULTURE? 
• GM plantings make up a mere 2.4% of global agricultural crop land
• Nearly 80% of the global area planted to GM crops was in just three countries - the US, Argentina and Brazil
• The US alone plants over 50% of the world's GM crops
• Less than 3% of cropland in India and China is planted with GM crops, almost exclusively just 1 crop - GM cotton
ARE GM CROPS EXPANDING IN EUROPE? 

• In the 27 countries of the European Union, GM crop cultivation represents a mere 0.21% of agricultural land
• The number of hectares of GM crops fell last year in Europe
• EuropaBio inflated the figures for GM crops grown in Europe by almost a quarter to mask the decline in the area of GM crops being grown has actually fallen in Europe every year since 2005.

WHAT GM CROPS ARE BEING GROWN? 

• Most investment has gone into a small number of crops and traits targeted toward large-scale commercial farming
• Only four crops - soya, maize, cotton and canola (oilseed rape) - comprise virtually 100% of GM agriculture
• GM rice, wheat, tomatoes, sweetcorn, potatoes and popcorn have all been rejected as unacceptable in the global marketplace
• GM papaya cultivation in Hawaii has been declining over several years.

DO GM CROPS MATCH THE HYPE? 

• None of the GM crops on the market are modified for increased yield potential
• Some studies show GM crops reduce yield
• Disease-tolerant GM crops are practically non-existent
• The GM industry has not marketed a single GM crop with enhanced nutrition, drought-tolerance, salt-tolerance or any of the other 'beneficial' traits long-promised by the industry
• There are no commercially available GM crops designed for biofuels

ARE GM CROPS REDUCING PESTICIDE USE? 

• Almost all GM crops involve just 2 traits, mainly just one trait - herbicide tolerance
• Herbicide tolerance is found in over 80% of all GM crops planted worldwide
• GM crops have contributed substantially to increased pesticide use
• Most new GM crop varieties are also pesticide-promoting
• GM crops have caused an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds
• This is encouraging the use of more toxic petsicides, including ones banned in some European countries

WHO BENEFITS FROM GM CROPS? 

• The real beneficiaries are the GM companies which profit from patents, expensive GM seeds, and increased pesticide sales
• Monsanto is the world's largest seed firm
• Monsanto holds a near monopoly in the biotech "traits" incorporated in GM seeds
• Monsanto is the world's fifth largest pesticide firm
• Monsanto markets Roundup, the world's biggest selling pesticide
• Monsanto controls roughly 60% of the market for glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup)
• Roundup is used in conjunction with Monsanto's 'Roundup Ready seeds'

WHO'S MILKING THE FOOD CRISIS? 

• The World Bank attributes 75% of global food price inflation to "biofuels"
• Monsanto has been at the heart of the "biofuels" lobby, particularly the lobby for corn ethanol
• The price of Monsanto's GM triple-stack corn will reportedly increase by around 35% in 2009 - by $95-100 per bag, to top $300 per bag
• The average price for soybean seed, the largest GM crop in the US, has risen by more than 50% in just two years from 2006 to 2008 - from $32.30 to $49.23 per planted acre
• Retail prices for Roundup herbicide  have increased from just $32 per gallon in December 2006 to $45 per gallon a year later, to $75 per gallon by June 2008 - a 134% price hike in less than two years

Almost all the facts in our fact file are taken from "Who Benefits from GM crops?: Feeding the biotech giants, not the world's poor", Friends of the Earth International (2009)

 

______________________________________________

Jeffrey Smith

Huffington Post,  December 5, 2008 | 12:18 PM (EST)

Bush's Environmental Legacy on GMOs Is Irreversible

In a few hundred thousand years, after all weather effects of 21st century climate change have disappeared from the earth's surface, after our quietly smoldering nuclear waste has been extinguished, two destructive impacts traceable to George Bush's policies will yet remain.
The first is extinctions. Species that have died out, including the subset resulting from Bush's environmental policies, will forever deprive our evolving biosphere of their contribution.
The second is genetically modified organisms (GMOs) -- animals, plants, bacteria, and viruses, who's DNA have been mixed and mangled by insertions from foreign species. Once released into the ecosystem, by intention or accident, the genetic pollution self-propagates. No recall by the Obama administration can clean up Mexico's indigenous corn varieties, now contaminated by our genetically modified (GM) corn. No executive order can remove or even identify the wild mustard plants now carrying altered genes bestowed on it by the pollen from its cousin, GM canola.
We all know stories that illustrate the exponential effects of invasive species. Here's my favorite, recalled in my book Genetic Roulette:
On Christmas Day 1859, the Victorian Acclimatization Society released 24 rabbits into the Australian countryside so that settlers could hunt them for sport and feel more "at home." The rabbits multiplied to well over 200 million, spreading out over 4 million square kilometers. That Christmas present now costs Australian agriculture about $600 million per year.
Will GMOs of today show up as the "Australian rabbits" of the future? While their impact on our ecosystem and diet is largely unstudied, that has not stopped the current and past administrations from presiding over the release of millions of acres of GM crops. Not only does each plant carry a gene from bacteria or viruses, its DNA has hundreds or thousands of mutations resulting from the disruptive process of genetic engineering. Reports suggest that the side effects of GMOs are quite dangerous.

Bush policies institutionalize GMO contamination
If we were to ban GMOs today, as is more than justified, some contamination from commercialized GM food crops will nonetheless carry forward in the gene pool of those (and related) species. This includes contaminants from our largest farmed GM crops, including soybeans, yellow corn, cotton, and canola, as well as the smaller crops: Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, and crookneck squash. Newly added--in this year's harvest--are GM sugar beets and white corn. There are also GM tomatoes and potatoes no longer on the market, but whose genes and seeds, to some degree, continue to persist "out there." But the dirty laundry list actually includes over 100 different experimental GM crops, field trialed at more than 50,000 sites in the US since 1986.
Although the government is supposed to make sure that these trials won't contaminate the surrounding environment, a 2005 report by the USDA Office of Inspector General harshly condemned the USDA's abominable oversight. "Current regulations, policies, and procedures," said the report, "do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology." The agency's weaknesses "increase the risk that regulated genetically engineered organisms will inadvertently persist in the environment."
But George Bush's pro-biotech response was to further weaken the agency's GMO oversight--and he's trying to do it quickly, before Obama steps in. The proposed ruling makes gene escape more likely, even from GM crops designed to produce pharmaceutical drugs and industrial chemicals.
Monsanto admits more contamination
As a backdrop to Bush's rushed proposal, Monsanto just admitted that an acre of its field trialed, not-yet-approved GM cottonseeds, was inadvertently harvested and mixed with approved cotton. It then entered our food chain as animal feed and cottonseed oil. Oops.
But the FDA, EPA, and USDA employed another of the Bush administration's institutionalized abdications of GMO oversight. They declared the cottonseed contamination safe, in spite of insufficient data to support their claim.
If Bush gets his new USDA rule into effect, let's hope Obama heeds the advice of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which "recommends that the new administration make revocation, revision and strengthening a top priority."
No that won't fully clean up our altered gene pool. But it will start to contain the runaway long-term genetic pollution that is now out of control.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

Jeffrey Smith

Huffington Post,  April 16, 2009 | 03:22 PM (EST)

Governor Sebelius Must Veto Kansas Bill That Endangers Milk Safety

Governor Sebelius wants to be our new Secretary of Health and Human Services. But before she is sworn in, she has an important job to do, which will demonstrate that she is serious about protecting the safety of our food supply. A bill passed the Kansas legislature on April 3rd, which would restrict any national US dairy from properly labeling their milk products as free from genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Governor Sebelius must veto it before the April 16th deadline.
Send Governor Sebelius an email urging her to do so.
Here is the first in a multi-part series explaining why Drugged Milk is dangerous, and how corporate manipulation, bad science, and political collusion pushed it into our food supply.
Get Our Milk Off Drugs, Part 1
Milk from rbGH-treated cows may increase risk of cancer
Growth hormones are created in the pituitary gland. Back in the 1930s, they discovered that injecting cows with their own pituitary extracts boosted milk production. But the process was too expensive and not commercially viable--until genetic engineering came along.
Monsanto scientists took the cow gene that creates growth hormones, altered it, and inserted it into E. coli bacteria to create a living drug factory. The bacteria-created hormone is similar, but not identical to the naturally occurring variety. Monsanto marketed it under the brand name Posilac. It is also called recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) or recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST).When injected into a cow, it boosts their whole metabolism. Milk production goes up by about 5%. But cows often get sick and die young.
Approved in the United States in 1993, by 2002 rbGH was used on 22% of the nation's dairy cows. It is banned in the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.
Milk from treated cows is different from normal milk. It has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, higher levels of the hormone insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is one of the most powerful growth hormones in the human body and is naturally present in cows' milk.
Milk drinkers increase their IGF-1 levels. One study showed a 10% increase. Another, analyzing diets of more than 1,000 nurses, showed milk was the food most associated with high IGF-1 levels. Neither of these studies used milk from cows treated with rbGH. If they had, the results may have been considerably more significant, since levels of IGF-1 in milk from treated cows can be up to 10 times higher, and according to rbGH expert Samuel Epstein MD, detection methods may underestimate the amount and impact of this increase by up to forty fold.
High IGF-1 levels is a huge cancer risk, according to more than three dozen studies. A Harvard study of 15,000 white males found those with elevated blood levels to be four times more likely to get prostate cancer than average men. In a Lancet study, premenopausal US women below age 50 with high IGF-1 levels were seven times as likely to develop breast cancer. "With the exception of a strong family history of breast cancer," the authors warned, "the relation between IGF-1 and risk of breast cancer may be greater than that of other established breast cancer risk factors." The International Journal of Cancer described a "significant association between circulating IGF-1 concentrations and an increased risk of lung, colon, prostate, and pre-menopausal breast cancer." A 1999 European Commission report concluded: "Avoidance of rbGH dairy products in favor of natural products would appear to be the most practical and immediate dietary intervention to . . . (achieve) the goal of preventing cancer."
There are a few ways in which IGF-1 may promote cancer. It causes cells to divide. It reduces programmed cell death (apoptosis) in tumor cells. And it inhibits the ability of various anti-cancer drugs to kill cultured human breast cancer cells.
The link between IGF-1 and cancer prompted the American Nurses Association to call for the elimination of rbGH in dairy production. The American Medical Association's past president urged hospitals to serve only rbGH-free milk, and over 160 hospitals have already pledged to do so. Schools nationwide have also banned drugged milk.
Consumer reaction has prompted a tipping point in the dairy industry. Over the last three years, companies such as Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and more than half of the nation's top 100 dairies have committed to stop using rbGH in some or all of their products. But the Kansas legislation, if not vetoed by Governor Sebelius, would require all brands that sell rbGH-free in the state, including national brands, to add a large and deceptive disclaimer to their package which falsely claims that rbGH does not change the quality of the milk. The bill even dictates the placement of the disclaimer. This would likely discourage some dairies from making rbGH-free claims on their package. And without that, they might also abandon their rbGH-free status altogether.
In short, this misguided legislation may ultimately take away your choices for healthier milk and promote cancer.
Please email Governor Sebelius, asking her to veto this misguided bill, before the April 16th deadline
Also check out the video on rbGH. Drink rbGH-free milk. And read part 2 and part 3 of this blog, including hijacked regulators, fired whistleblowers, suppressed news coverage, and more.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

 

 

Jeffrey Smith

Huffington Post, April 16, 2009 | 03:20 PM (EST)

FDA Promotes Unsafe Milk Due to Industry Pressure

The following is the second part of a series called Get Our Milk Off Drugs, written in response to pending legislation that would interfere with dairies who want to label their products as free from genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Although the bill was passed in the Kansas legislature, it would effect the labeling of every product sold in the state, including all national brands. Therefore, we ask everyone to email Governor Sebelius before April 16, urging her to veto the bill. Furthermore, since Governor Sebelius is expected to become the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, the email asks her to use her new appointment to ban this dangerous drug once and for all.
The material for this series is drawn from my books Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception, and my 18-minute online film Your Milk on Drugs--Just Say No!.

Get Our Milk off Drugs, Part 2
"The whole rbGH thing represents fundamental flaws in the regulatory process. . . . It was bad science and bad regulation."
This was the conclusion of former FDA veterinarian Richard Burroughs, who was a lead reviewer in the approval process of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) for nearly five years. The drug "was approved prematurely without adequate information," says Burroughs, whose life and career became a casualty in a perfect storm of industry manipulation and political collusion.
As the only member of the FDA team who had dairy herd experience, Burroughs wrote the original protocols for evaluating the safety of rbGH on cows. The FDA didn't conduct the tests themselves. It was always the drug's maker who performed the studies and reported the results. But according to Burroughs, they "would come in and try to negotiate the protocols to water them down." And when they ultimately presented their findings, Burroughs was shocked to discover, "They just went out and skewed the data."
The drug's maker Monsanto, for example, claimed that only a handful of cows developed udder infections, but documents later revealed the actual number to be 9,500. Furthermore, infected cows were often dropped from company studies altogether. And in tests designed to show that rbGH injections did not interfere with fertility, leaked FDA documents showed how researchers added cows to the study that were pregnant prior to injection.
According to Burroughs, even FDA officials "suppressed and manipulated data to cover up their own ignorance and incompetence." He said that since the science behind the rbGH studies was well outside the expertise of agency employees, rather than admit they were in over their heads, "the Center decided to cover up inappropriate studies and decisions."
One of the problems they faced was that Monsanto flooded them with huge amounts of irrelevant information, making it hard for them to properly analyze what was important. "We were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the research," says Burroughs. At one point, the Human Safety Division reviewed forty volumes of submissions in just two weeks.
Burroughs refused to accept compromises on safety and demanded more tests. But in late 1989, he was fired and some of his tests canceled. "I was told that I was slowing down the approval process,"
At a trial that later reinstated him at the FDA, his former boss admitted that Burroughs had been set up. When he rejoined the agency, officials never let him see any rbGH data again and made his life miserable. He soon quit.
Rigging the numbers
Although some FDA scientists vehemently defended rbGH, their claims don't hold up. They said, for example, that bovine growth hormone does not increase substantially in milk from treated cows. The study they cited, however, shows a 26% increase of the hormone. Furthermore, the cows used for that study had received a substitute rbGH formulation, at only 2% of the normal injected dosage.
The FDA scientists claimed that 90% of the bovine growth hormone in the milk was destroyed during pasteurization, so it wouldn't matter even if there had been a substantial increase. But they failed to mention that the researchers pasteurized the milk 120 times longer than normal, and even then only destroyed 19% of the hormone. So they spiked the milk with powdered hormone--146 times the naturally occurring levels--heated that mixture 120 times longer than normal, and under those artificial conditions were able to destroy 90% of the hormone.
Canadian Government Scientists Say FDA Evaluation was a Façade
Years after the drug was on the market, Canadian government scientists analyzed the FDA's approval process and wrote a lengthy and scathing report. It recounted omissions, contradictions, weaknesses, and gaps in the FDA's approval process. Known as the Gaps Analysis Report, it concluded that the FDA's "1990 evaluation was largely a theoretical review taking the manufacturer's conclusions at face value. No details of the studies nor a critical analysis of the quality of the data was provided."
According to the report, since rbGH was a hormone, "its chemistry should have prompted more exhaustive and longer toxicological studies in laboratory animals." These are "usually required . . . to ascertain human safety." Because they weren't conducted, "such possibilities and potential as sterility, infertility, birth defects, cancer and immunological derangements were not addressed."
Studies normally used to determine whether a drug is carcinogenic will test two different species for about two years--the lifetime of mice or rats. But Monsanto tested rbGH on rats for 28 or 90 days. FDA official John Scheid later admitted to the Associated Press that the agency had never actually examined the raw data from Monsanto's rat feeding study; rather they based their conclusions on a summary provided by Monsanto. According to Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly, "relying on a summary of a study, rather than on detailed data from the study, would violate FDA's published procedures."
The Gaps report showed that the FDA "improperly reported" data from the feeding study, arriving at false and unsupported conclusions of safety. When the Canadians pointed out that 20 to 30 percent of the rats fed rbGH developed antibody responses, the FDA was forced to admit that they had accidentally overlooked the antibody study entirely. Furthermore, the Canadian report showed that some male rats which were fed the hormone developed cysts on their thyroid and changes in their prostate gland, which should have prompted further investigation.
The Canadian report also pointed out that injected cows suffer from "numerous adverse effects" and that the milk and meat from sick cows may make us sick. Hormone-treated cows can develop birth defects, reproductive disorders, udder infection, foot and leg injuries, metabolic disorders, uterine infections, indigestion, bloat, diarrhea, lesions, and shortened lives. Cows on the drug for only eight months had much larger hearts, livers, kidneys, ovaries, and adrenal glands. The Canadians wrote that although the significant changes in the health of cows "may have had an impact on human health," this was not taken into consideration by the FDA when they approved the drug.

Monsanto Hijacks Regulators
Bovine growth hormone was the first genetically engineered animal drug reviewed by the FDA, and there was a lot of pressure to get it approved quickly. Both the first Bush and Clinton White Houses had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the agency was apparently doing whatever it took to follow orders.
Disgruntled FDA employees wrote an anonymous letter to Congressmen, claiming that the whole rbGH evaluation process was embroiled in fraud and conflict of interest. For example, they complained of the role of Dr. Margaret Miller.
"[Miller] wrote the FDA's opinion on why milk from [rbGH]-treated cows should not be labeled. However, before coming to FDA, Dr. Margaret Miller was working for the Monsanto company as a researcher on [rbGH]. At the time she wrote the FDA opinion on labeling, she was still publishing papers with Monsanto scientists on [rbGH]. It appears to us that this is a direct conflict of interest to have in any way Dr. Miller working on [rbGH]."
On April 15, 1994, three Congressmen responded to the letter's allegations by asking the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to investigate. The congressmen wrote, "The entire FDA review of rbGH seemingly has been characterized by misinformation and questionable actions on the part of both FDA and the Monsanto Company officials." The letter also describes the previous attempt by the GAO to investigate the rbGH approval process, which they "had to abandon . . . because of the Monsanto Company's refusal to make available to them all pertinent clinical and related data." The letter directed the GAO to look into potential conflicts of interest not only for Margaret Miller, but also for Michael Taylor and Susan Sechen.
Sechen formerly conducted Monsanto-sponsored research on rbGH, and then joined the FDA to become the lead reviewer for the drug. Taylor used to be Monsanto's outside attorney, working with them, according to the Congressmen's letter, "regarding food labeling and regulatory issues." The FDA created a new position for Taylor, as Deputy Commissioner for Policy. He was in charge of overseeing the formation of the agency's policy on rbGH, which ultimately allowed rbGH on the market without adequate testing, and without mandatory labeling.
Taylor even wrote a paper expressing an opinion that if a dairy was to label its milk as rbGH-free, it should also include a bold disclaimer stating, "The FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbGH-supplemented and non-rbGH-supplemented cows." This was a suggestion, not a requirement. But the Kansas legislature passed a law on April 3, 2009 making it a requirement for products sold in the state--including all national dairy brands. (Ask Governor Sebelius to veto that bill.)
Taylor also oversaw the FDA's dangerous hands-off policy on genetically modified foods, which also benefited Monsanto at the expense of public health. He eventually left the FDA for the USDA, where he worked on GMO issues. Taylor then took the position of vice president for Monsanto. He now works closely with the Obama administration on food safety.
Milk Controversy Spills into Canada
In 1998, six Canadian government scientists, including those who wrote the Gaps Analysis Report, testified before the Senate that they were being pressured by superiors to approve rbGH, even though they were convinced it was unsafe. They also testified that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet in a government office, and that Monsanto offered them a bribe of $1-2 million to approve the drug without further tests. (A Monsanto representative told national Canadian television that the scientists had obviously misunderstood an offer for research money. US court documents later revealed that at the same time Canadian officials accused them of attempted bribery, Monsanto was actively offering bribes to about 140 government officials in Indonesia, trying to gain approval for their genetically modified seeds.)
In words reminiscent of Burroughs' experience at the FDA years earlier, the Canadian scientists told the Senate committee, "pharmaceutical manufacturers have far too much influence in the drug approval process." Scientists "often feel that their careers are threatened if they stand in the way of a drug they don't believe is safe." And "managers without scientific experience regularly overrule their decisions."
One of the whistle-blowing scientists to testify, Shiv Chopra, revealed that the policy in the department is to "serve the client." The client, however, is no longer defined as the public: "The client is now the industry."
"We have been pressured and coerced to pass drugs of questionable safety, including [rbGH]," Chopra said. He "testified that one of his managers threatened to ship him and his colleagues to other departments where they would 'never be heard of again' if they didn't hurry favorable evaluations of rbGH."
Soon after testifying, Chopra was suspended by his department for five days without pay. The cause, he later told another Senate committee, was retaliation for his testimony.
In spite of blatant efforts within the government to approve rbGH, Canada ultimately banned it. Nonetheless, the health of Canadians is still impacted, as much of their imported milk is from drugged cows US.
The time for banning rbGH in the US is long overdue. Ask Governor Sebelius, who plans to be our next Secretary of Health and Human Services, to do so as her first act.
Read part 1, and part 3 of this series.
Watch the 18-minute documentary Your Milk on Drugs--Just Say No!. Be sure to stock up on rbGH-free dairy brands.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

 

Jeffrey Smith

Huffington Post,  April 13, 2009 | 06:27 PM (EST)

Monsanto Forced Fox TV to Censor Coverage of Dangerous Milk Drug

The following is the third in a series called Get Our Milk Off Drugs, written in response to pending legislation that would interfere with dairies labeling their products as free from genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Although the bill was passed in Kansas, it effects all national brands, since they sell within Kansas. Therefore, we ask everyone to email Governor Sebelius before April 16, urging her to veto the bill. Furthermore, since Governor Sebelius is expected to become the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, the email asks her to use her new appointment to ban this dangerous drug once and for all.
The material for this series is drawn from my books Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception, and my 18-minute online film Your Milk on Drugs--Just Say No!.
Also see Part 1, and Part 2.
Get Our Milk off Drugs, Part 3
I know from personal experience how satisfying it is to catch some nasty multinational corporation telling lies about the safety of their product--especially when that company is Monsanto, the world's largest maker of genetically modified (GM) foods. So I could only imagine the excitement of investigative reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had caught a Monsanto executive on film repeatedly lying about GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST).
The two worked at WTVT, a Fox television station in Tampa, Florida, and were described as a "television dream team." Akre was a former CNN anchorwoman and reporter, Wilson a three-time Emmy Award winner whom Penthouse described as "one of the most famous and feared journalists in America." Their four-part news series on rbGH was scheduled to begin on February 24, 1997. It was going to expose Monsanto's lies to the world, and show how the milk from treated cows was dangerously linked to cancer.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Monsanto's Lies
Monsanto's dairy research director Bob Collier, PhD, was the rbGH front man who was interviewed by Jane Akre. Here is a sample of some of his claims.
Collier said, [rbGH] "is the single most-tested product in history." The reporters, however, found that "experts in the field of domestic animal science say that this claim is demonstrably false."
When asked why rbGH had not been approved in Europe, he said the EU "approved it technically from a safety standpoint, but the dairy policy there was such that they still have price supports . . . it proved to be a moratorium based on market issues not health issues."
In reality, health was Europe's key reason for banning the drug. A December 1994 letter from the Vice President of the Agriculture Committee of the European Commission to the director of the FDA stated,
"Consumers in the European Community and their representatives in the European Parliament are apparently much more concerned about the unresolved human health issues related to [rbGH] than your agency was when it authorized the product."
When Akre asked Collier whether injections "rev up" the cows, he said the hormone "does not change the basal metabolic rate, it merely increases the amount of milk produced." But his statement is contradicted even by Monsanto's literature.
Injected cows also have much higher levels of udder infections, which put more pus in the milk. To treat this, farmers use more antibiotics, which also end up in the milk. But Collier claimed that increased levels of antibiotics in the milk weren't a problem, since every truckload of milk is tested. But scientists and Florida dairy officials told the reporters that each truckload is only tested for penicillin-related antibiotics. There's also a spot check for one other antibiotic every three months Such monitoring misses most of the more than 60 varieties of antibiotics used by dairy farmers.
Collier also made the wild claim, "We have not opposed" voluntary labeling of products as rbGH-free. In truth, Monsanto filed lawsuits against two small dairies to force them to stop labeling their milk as rbGH-free. According to Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly "The dairies folded and Monsanto then sent letters around to other dairy organizations announcing the outcome of the two lawsuits--in all likelihood, for purposes of intimidation." Years later, as the trend towards rbGH-free milk started taking off, Monsanto asked the FDA and FTC to make such label claims illegal. When the feds turned down their request, Monsanto asked state governments to ban the labels.
At one point in the interview, Akre had had enough of Collier's lies. She was not going to let him get away with it anymore. (Here is an excerpt from my book Seeds of Deception.)
Akre redirected the conversation to IGF-1, the growth hormone associated with cancer. Akre recollected, "I asked about the limited testing for the effects of altered milk on humans. Collier tells me 'because the concentration of IGF-1 . . . doesn't change, there is no change in exposure, so the FDA concluded there is no indication that long-term chronic studies were justified.'"
Now Akre was ready. She reached into a stack of papers on her lap--research she had collected and some of the five pounds of documents sent to her by Monsanto, which, she is sure, they didn't expect her to read.
Akre pulled out an FDA report published in Science 1990, stating that Monsanto's own studies clearly show an increase of IGF-1 in milk. Colliers, who was fidgeting, clearing his throat, and stammering, was clearly uncomfortable.
He reassured her that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Government Accounting Office also review the process for human safety and concluded that Monsanto's test process was correct. But Akre was ready again: "I pull out an American Medical Association report that says further study is needed as to the effects of IGF-1 on humans." She points out that the NIH also said more study is needed.
Collier then tried to claim that IGF-1 is destroyed during the process of digestion, but Akre had read the studies and knew that too was false.
Akre and Wilson wove Collier's lies throughout their 4-part series, which made it clear that rbGH was a potentially huge public health danger. They were sure the program would have a big impact. They were right, but it wasn't what they planned.
Monsanto Threatens Fox
On the Friday before Monday's air date, Monsanto's lawyer faxed a letter to Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News in New York, claiming that the series was biased and unscientific. It threatened, "There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner." Rupert Murdoch, of course is the owner, and part of what was at stake was lots of Monsanto advertising dollars--for the Florida station, the entire Fox network, and Murdoch's Actmedia, a major advertising agency used by Monsanto. Fox pulled the series for "further review."
After the Florida station's general manager, who had a background in investigative reporting, meticulously vetted the show, he verified that every statement was accurate and unbiased. The station re-scheduled the series for the following week.
Monsanto's attorney immediately sent another, more strongly worded letter to Ailes, this time indicating that the news story "could lead to serious damage to Monsanto and dire consequences for Fox News." The airing was postponed indefinitely.
The Florida station's general manager and news manager were soon fired, and according to Wilson, the new general manager was a salesman with no news experience. Wilson tried to convince him to run the rbGH story on its merits. He said Monsanto's whole PR campaign was based on the false statement that milk from rbGH-treated cows is "the same safe wholesome product we've always known." But even Monsanto's own studies showed this to be a lie, and it could be endangering the public. Wilson recounted to me,
"I tried to appeal to his basic sense of why this is news. He responded, 'Don't tell me what news is. We paid $2 billion for these television stations and the news is what we say it is. We'll tell you what the news is.'"
According to Wilson, the manager offered hush money to the two reporters. They would be paid the full amount of what was remaining in their contract, but they were free to go--essentially fired. But there was a catch. They were to agree never to talk about rbGH again--not for any other news organization.
Wilson responded, "I'm never going to agree for any amount of money you offer me to gag myself from revealing in some other time and place what's going on here." Wilson told me,
"He looked at us with this blank stare like he'd never heard such a thing. And he said, 'I don't get it. What's with you people? I just want people who want to be on TV. . . . I've never met any people like you before.' He just offered us 6 figures and to him what we were being asked to do in exchange was no big deal. Why in the world would we turn it down? And lose a chance to continue to be on TV--as if that is such a big deal that one would sell one's soul to continue to do it."
The reporters offered to re-write the show to make it more palatable, but with each draft, Fox attorneys instructed them to make it more favorable to Monsanto. Over the next 6 months, they re-wrote the script 83 times.
Akre and Wilson "were repeatedly instructed to include unverified and even some outright false statements by Monsanto's dairy research director." For example, they were told to include a statement that milk from rbGH-injected cows is the same and as safe as milk from untreated cows. The reporters said that management even threatened to fire them if the statement was not included.
Akre told me, "We knew it was a lie. Monsanto's own study showed it was a lie. Yet we were told to leave that statement in without refutation, even though we had contrary evidence. That's falsifying the news."
When they showed the evidence to Fox's lawyer that Monsanto's claims were false, according to Wilson she replied, "You guys don't get it--it isn't about whether you have your facts right or whether it's true. It's the fact that we don't want to put up $200,000 to go up against Monsanto."
Fox suspended the two for "insubordination," then fired them altogether.
TV News Goes to Court
Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station. They based their case on Florida whistle-blower laws, which protect employees from retaliation for reporting (or threatening to report) . to a government regulatory agency. employer misconduct, which violates any law, rule or regulation speaking out (or threatening to speak out) against their employer for breaking the law. The jury awarded Akre $425,000, agreeing that her dismissal was retaliation for her threat to tell the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about the station's plan to report false information on television.
Fox appealed and the case was overturned. It turns out that lying on TV is not against the law. The FCC's policy against news distortion is a policy, not a "rule, law, or regulation," so the Florida's whistle-blower law did not apply. Furthermore, in a move certain to chill future whistleblowers, the court used the "Non-Prevailing Party Pays" provision of the state's whistleblower protection act to rule that Akre and Wilson pay nearly $200,000 of Fox's legal fees.
The reporters have since been the recipients of numerous awards for their ethics and courage, including the Goldman environmental prize, considered the Nobel Prize for the environment. The Fox station eventually ran a neutered report on rbGH that contained Monsanto's false statement that rbGH milk is unchanged. Fortunately, one of the earlier versions of the original Akre and Wilson series became public domain when it was used as an exhibit in their trial. With their blessing, I extracted footage from their excellent piece for my 18-minute film Your Milk on Drugs--Just Say No!, which is available online Also see Part 1, and Part 2 of this series.
Email Governor Sebelius before April 16, urging her to veto a bill that would require all national dairy brands that label their products as rbGH-free, to also place a false disclaimer, saying that there is no difference in milk from treated and non-treated cows.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods distributed by Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

Jeffrey Smith

Huffington Post,  November 30, 2008 | 10:43 AM (EST)

Obama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men"

Biotech "Yes Men" on Obama's team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic "group think" that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations--where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology.
Clinton's agriculture secretary Dan Glickman saw it first hand:
"It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"
When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he "got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration."
By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist.

• The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data show that the opposite is true.
• We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average reduction in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers.
• George H. W. Bush fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants.
• Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigious International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger.

Food Safety Lies
Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA's 1992 GMO policy, which stated:
"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."
The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists that GM foods were substantially different, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public.
Their concerns stayed hidden until 1999, when 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports were made public due to a lawsuit. According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, the documents showed how their warnings and "references to the unintended negative effects" of genetic engineering "were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement," in spite of scientists' protests.
"What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?" wrote FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the policy. "It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."
Who flooded the market with dangerous GMOs
Thanks to the FDA's "promote biotech" policy, perilously few safety studies and investigations have been conducted on GMOs. Those that have, including two government studies from Austria and Italy published just last month, demonstrate that the concerns by FDA scientists should have been heeded. GMOs have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions in humans, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. GMOs are unsafe.
At the highest level, the responsibility for this disregard of science and consumer safety lies with the first Bush White House, which had ordered the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry and get GM foods on the market quickly. To accomplish this White House directive, the FDA created a position for Michael Taylor. As the FDA's new Deputy Commissioner of Policy, he oversaw the creation of GMO policy.
Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC.
Michael Taylor is on the Obama transition team.
Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk
Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1--a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see www.YourMilkonDrugs.com.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling.
As more and more consumers here learn about the health risks of the drug, they shift their purchases to brands that voluntarily label their products as not using rbGH. Consumer rejection of rbGH hit a tipping point a couple of years ago, and since then it has been kicked out of milk from Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Subway, and at least 40 of the top 100 dairies. In 2007, Monsanto desperately tried to reverse the trend by asking the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as free from rbGH. Both agencies flatly refused the company's request.
But Monsanto turned to an ally, Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. Wolff used his position to single-handedly declare rbGH-free labels illegal in his state. Such a policy would make it impossible for national dairy brands to declare their products rbGH-free, since they couldn't change packaging just for Pennsylvania. Wolff's audacious move so infuriated citizens around the nation, the outpouring caused the governor to step in and stop the prohibition before it took effect.
Dennis Wolff, according to unbossed.com, is being considered for Obama's USDA Secretary.
Although Pennsylvania did not ultimately ban rbGH-free labels, they did decide to require companies who use the labels to also include a disclaimer sentence on the package, stating that the according to the FDA there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rbGH and those not treated. In reality, this sentence contradicts the FDA's own scientists. (Is this sounding all too familiar?) Even according to Monsanto's own studies, milk from treated cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and IGF-1. Blatantly ignoring the data, a top FDA bureaucrat wrote a "white paper" urging companies that labeled products as rbGH-free to also use that disclaimer on their packaging. The bureaucrat was Michael Taylor.
Betting on biotech is "Bad-idea virus"
For several years, politicians around the US were offering money and tax-breaks to bring biotech companies into their city or state. But according to Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a 2004 report on this trend, "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable. This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials." He said it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."
One politician who caught a bad case of the bad-idea virus was Tom Vilsack, Iowa's governor from 1998-2006. He was co-creator and chair of the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year.
Tom Vilsack was considered a front runner for Obama's USDA secretary. Perhaps the outcry prompted by Vilsack's biotech connections was the reason for his name being withdrawn.
Change, Truth, Hope
I don't know Barack Obama's position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, "Obama, like Bush, may be Ag biotech ally", there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist's full court spin.
- His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000. - [Obama] said biotech crops "have provided enormous benefits" to farmers and expressed confidence "that we can continue to modify plants safely."
On the other hand, Obama may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants "stringent tests for environmental and health effects" and "stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice."
There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors.
President Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.
Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration.
(I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.)
Please sign a petition asking President Obama to make his GMO labeling plan comprehensive and meaningful.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

 

______________________________________________________________

Mother Rats Fed Genetically Modified Soy Led to 56% Mortality of Offspring

Medical Association Urges NIH to Follow-up Preliminary Evidence

October 31, 2005—Tucson, AZ. At the conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) held from October 27-30, the results of a Russian rat study were presented in which an astounding 55.6% of the offspring of female rats fed genetically engineered soy flour died within three weeks. The female rats had received 5-7 grams of the Roundup Ready variety of soybeans, beginning two weeks before conception and continuing through nursing. By comparison, only 9% of the offspring of rats fed non-GM soy died. Furthermore, offspring from the GM-fed group were significantly stunted—36% weighed less than 20 grams after 2 weeks, compared to only 6.7% from the non-GM soy control group.

The study was conducted by Dr. Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). It was originally presented on October 10, 2005 to the symposium on genetic modification in Russia, organized by the National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS). It was presented at the AAEM conference by Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, the world’s bestselling book on GM food safety.

Smith says, “The Russian study is preliminary and not conclusive. But given the disturbing and dramatic results, it begs immediate independent follow-up.”

Medical AcademyUrges NIH Follow-up

The board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine reviewed the Russian research, and endorsed a resolution at their October 30 meeting, which states: “We recognize that this study is preliminary in nature. It hasn’t yet been peer reviewed and the methodology has not been spelled out in detail. But given the magnitude of the findings and the implications for human health, we urge the National Institutes of Health to immediately replicate the research.”

According to Dr. Jim Willoughby, he Academy president, “Genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are being consumed daily by a significant proportion of our population. We need rigorous, independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods put the population at risk.”

Genetically Altered Foods Prone to Side Effects

Smith, who is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology in Iowa, presented the AAEM conference with results from other published studies as well. Animals fed GM food developed potentially precancerous cell growth, stunted organs, damaged immune systems, problems in blood cell and liver cell development, lesions in the stomach, kidneys, and livers, and higher death rates. Also, nearly
25 farmers claim that varieties of GM corn caused their pigs to become sterile.

There has only been a single human feeding study, which, according to Smith, verified that the gene inserted into GM soy transferred into the DNA of intestinal bacterial. “This means that even if you stop eating GM soy, you may still have the foreign protein being produced inside you, possibly for the long term.”

According to Smith, the process of gene insertion can turn genes off, permanently turn them on, change the expression of hundreds of other genes, create mutations, and introduce new allergenic proteins. “Even the FDA’s own scientists warned of possible toxins, allergens, new diseases and nutritional problems,” says Smith, who refers to agency memos made public from a lawsuit. “Government scientists had urged their superiors to require long term safety tests but were ignored by the person in charge of policy—who was the former attorney for biotech giant Monsanto and later their vice president.” FDA policy states that the manufacturers can decide if their own GM foods are safe, without required studies.

Click here for photos of stunted rats
<http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle?objectID=293> .

Contact: Jeffrey Smith, in Iowa, 641.209.1765, info@seedsofdeception.com

Dr. Irina Ermakova, in Russia, +7-095-334-43-13,  i_ermakova@mail.ru <mailto:i_ermakova@mail.ru>

Backgrounder: Click here for Jeffrey Smith’s free monthly syndicated column entitled Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate Genetically Engineered Soy <http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle?objectID=299> , which can be reproduced in part or in whole. Archived columns are available at www.responsibletechnology.org <http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showPage/index.cfm?objectID=gmf

ree,4992> .

________________________________________________

ISIS Press Release 19/11/08

 

GM Maize Disturbs Immune System of Young and Old Mice

 

New research add to the weight of damning evidence against the safety of GM food Dr. Mae-Wan Ho <http://www.i-sis.org.uk/contact.php>

The Italian government’s National Institute of Research on Food and Nutrition has just published a report online in the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry documenting significant disturbances in the immune system of young and old mice that have been fed the GM maize MON 810  [1]. This follows hot on the heels of results released by the Austrian government showing that GM Maize Reduces Fertility & Deregulates Genes in Mice <http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GmMaizeReducesMiceFertility.php>  (SiS 41) [2].
These revelations confirm a string of previous findings on adverse health impacts of GM food and feed, leave us in little doubt that GM is Dangerous and Futile <http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMDangerousFutile.php>
(SiS 40) [3]. Proponents should stop misleading the public that GM food and feed is safe.

The GM maize and the parental non-GM variety from which it was derived, were grown simultaneously in neighbouring fields in Landriano, Italy, from seeds provided by Seeds Emporda (Girona, Spain). The control maize flour from the non-GM parental strain had a low level of GMO contamination (0.29 percent by PCR test) but only the GM maize had the specific gene coding for the toxin Cry1Ab that acts as a pesticide.

The GM and non-GM maize were also analysed for levels of the fungal aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, G2, fumonisin B1 (FB1), deoxynivalenol (DON), ochratoxin, and zeralenon, that frequently contaminate maize grains. The values were below the maximum allowed in Europe, except for FB1 (1350 and 2450 mg/kg) and DON (1300 and 650 mg/kg) in GM and non-GM maize respectively.

The diets were formulated according to accepted standards and contained 50 percent MON810 or its parental control maize flour. A standard pellet diet containing about 50 percent of commercial non GM maize was also used, which did not contain CrylAb by PCR test.

Weaning mice, 21 days old, were fed with the diets for 30 and 90 days, and the old mice, 18 to 19 months, were fed for 90 days on the test diets; and male Balb/c mice were used in all the experiments.

There were no differences in the mean body weight or in food consumed between the GM-fed and control mice. These are the ‘agronomic’
characteristics typically measured in feeding tests, and all too often, the only characteristics measured.

The total number of white blood cells in the small intestine, spleen and blood were not different. However, there were significant differences in the percentages of T and B cells, and of CD4+, CD8+, gdT+, and mbT+ subpopulations in both weaning and old mice that were GM-fed for 30 and 90 days respectively compared with controls. These changes appeared in the gut, spleen and blood, and were accompanied by increase in blood cytokines IL-6, IL-13, IL-12p70, and MIP-1b, all involved in allergic and inflammatory responses. These changes were not detected in the mice fed the commercial non-GM pellet diet.

The greatest effects were the weaning mice fed for 30 days on GM maize, whereas those fed for 90 days only had increased B cells. In the old mice, the induced changes were similar to those found for the weaning mice fed for 30 days. These results show that very young and old mice are more susceptible to immunological insults. By the time the mice were
111 days old (90+21), a degree of tolerance had been established, so that the disturbances were reduced.

The immune disturbances are significant also in view of findings from another laboratory [4]; proteomic analysis identified 43 proteins that were up or down regulated in the MON 810 maize seeds compared with the parental strain, among them a 50 kda g-zein, a well-known allergenic protein [5], that was not present in the parental strain.

It is clear that genetic modification is inherently hazardous, as it invariably result in unpredictable and uncontrollable changes in the genome and the epigenome (pattern of gene expression) that impact on safety.

 

References

 

1.    Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A
and Mengheri E. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric food Chem, http://pubs.ac.org <http://pubs.ac.org/> , 16 November 2008
2.    Ho MW. GM maize reduces fertility and deregulates genes in mice.
Science in Society 41 <http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis41.php>  (to
appear)
3.    Ho MW. GM is dangerous and futile. Science in Society 40
<http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis40.php>  (in press).
4.    Zolla L, Rinalducci S, Antonioli P, Righetti PG. Proteomics as a
complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a sresult of genetic modification. J. Proteome Res 2008, 7, 1850-61.
5.    Pasini G, Simonato B, Curioni A, Vincenzi S, Cristaudo Q,
Santucci B, Peruffo AD, Giannattasio M. IgE-mediated allergy to corn: a 50 kDa protein, belonging to the reduced soluble proteins, is a major allergen. Allergy 2002, 37, 98-106.

______________________________________________________________

November 18, 2008: issued by Aruna Rodrigues
Press Release: Science in Austria and Farmer Evidence in India Converge
Austrian Government Study Confirms GM Crops
Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety 
Advocates Call for Immediate Ban of All GM Foods and GM Crops
November 2008: Austrian Government Rat Feeding Study with Bt Corn and Monsanto’s Herbicide Roundup Ready.
A long-term multi generational feeding study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, carried out by Veterinary University Vienna, confirms that feeding mice with genetically modified corn developed by the US-based Monsanto Corporation led to lower fertility and body weight. Lead author of the study Professor Zentek said that there was a direct link between the decrease in fertility and the GM diet, and that mice fed with non-GE corn reproduced more efficiently.
In the study, Austrian scientists performed several long-term feeding trials over 20 weeks with laboratory mice fed a diet containing 33% of a GM variety (NK 603 x MON 810), and a closely related non-GE variety used in many countries. Statistically significant litter size and pup weight decreases were found in the third and fourth litters in the GM-fed mice, compared to the control group.  
The evidence of Science and of Indian Farmers is the same.
Hissar, (Haryana) Investigation of Bt Cotton health impacts in mid November ‘08
Aruna Rodrigues (Petitioner No1 to the SC of India with co-petitioners Rajeev Baruah, PV Satheesh and Devinder Sharma,) has just returned from an investigation in four villages in the area of Hissar, of about 20 village house-holds. She was accompanied by two experienced vets from Anthra, Pune. The findings are deeply worrying & serious. They include reproductive problems in buffalo and shepherd herds of sheep and goats (reduced fertility, aborted foetuses, premature deliveries and calf deaths), toxic effects leading to sudden unexplained deaths, as well as reduced milk yields and fat content. The allergenicity incidents are more easily correlated to the Bt cotton harvesting season and cotton-picking. So also reduced milk yields are more easily identified with the introduction of Bt cotton and feeding with Bt cotton meal and boiled Bt cotton seed, given to milch cattle to increase milk yields and fat content. Instead of a rise in both, as winter approaches, there is a marked reduction of an average of around 25%.
These reports are in common with those reported earlier from Maharashtra, Andhra, MP & Punjab over the last few years. Yet, it is curious that the GEAC has consistently ignored farmers and their experience and knowledge of their fields, soil, animals, children and their labour. The refusal to undertake anything less than the most exhaustive and rigorous investigation through long term  rat feeding studies and other measures is a clear indication of their pro GM agenda at the expense of public health and the environment. This is directly attributable to the proven conflict of interest within the GEAC and the official Government policy to promote GM crops.
The Indian Government does not subject GMOs to sound bio-safety studies and rigorous, long term risk assessment. The Nation is greatly imperilled by their unscientific approach. A moratorium has been called for in the Supreme Court.  

Aruna Rodrigues 18th November, 08

 

___________________________________________

ISIS Press Release 19/11/08

GM Maize Reduces Fertility & Deregulates Genes in Mice

Comprehensive long term studies commissioned by the Austrian government reveal that mice fed GM maize produced fewer and smaller litters with many genes affected compared to controls. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho 
Austrian scientists carried out long term studies that showed GM maize fed to mice significantly reduced their fertility over three to four breeding cycles within one generation [1]. Similar effects were found in mice fed GM maize and bred over four generations; although the results did not reach statistical significance in any one generation, the trend was unmistakable, more pups lost and smaller litters in the GM-fed mice.
The studies are by far the most meticulous and comprehensive feeding trials to-date, and confirm deleterious reproductive and health impacts obtained by scientists independent of the biotech industry and farmers’ observations in the field.
The new research results are a landmark in the safety assessment of GM food. Most feeding trials were short-term and restricted to a single generation or a single breeding cycle. The “multi-generational” study widely cited as evidence of no long term adverse impacts from GM feed is highly misleading as the experiment did not involve trans-generational feeding, but merely breeding mice that were not GM fed for three generations, and carrying out a separate experiment with GM feed for each generation [3] There were other serious flaws in that experiment, not least the failure to ascertain by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that the processed GM feed used actually contained GM soya.

Targeting long term effects

The new studies were commissioned by the Austrian government several years ago, when it became clear that proper feeding trials were very thin on the ground, and regulators all over the world were largely dependent on companies submitting data that were inadequate and unreliable in many ways, but which they accepted without question [4]
Alberta Velimirov at Research Institute on Biological Agriculture (Forschungsinttitut für biologishen Landbau) and Claudia Binter and Jürgen Zentck at the Institute for Nutrition (Institut für Ernährung) both in Vienna, monitored changes in gross morphology, reproductive performance, and sub-microscopic analyses of tissues and cells, as well as gene expression. (They found no immunochemical or other microscopic differences in the tissues.)
Three series of experiments were done. The first was a multigeneration feeding trial in which the mice were fed and bred for four successive generations, beginning with the F0 parents that were fed on the diets from birth. The second was a multi-cycle breeding trial lasting 20 weeks in which breeding pairs of mice were fed beginning 1 week prior to co-habitation until the end of experiment, and allowed to go through four breeding cycles in the same generation. The third was a life-term trial involving feeding the mice without breeding from conception (via the pregnant mothers) to their eventual death.
A laboratory non-inbred strain of mice was used for all experiments, in order to avoid the effects of inbreeding, so that the results would be more generally applicable to natural populations.
The researchers report that it was not possible to obtain a GM test crop plus parental line from the agro-business companies, which was why the test diets consisting of 33 percent GM maize had to be compared with a non-GM maize variety (also at 33 percent) that was closely related to the GM maize. Both were grown under identical conditions in the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada in Nova Scotia, in 2005 and 2007. The GM maize was the transgene hybrid NK603 x MON810 containing three gene cassettes, two conveying glyphosate herbicide tolerance and one insect resistance coding for endotoxin Cry1Ab. The transgenic protein was estimated to be 0.11-0.24 microgram per gram of fresh grain.
The multigeneration study also included one group with a non-GM maize variety cultivated in Austria.
The herbicides dicamba, atrazine and s-metalochlor were used with non-GM
Maise, while glyphosate only was used with the GM maize. Contamination levels of the maize grains with herbicides were determined to be less than 0.01 percent of each of the herbicides. This was important to make sure that effects due to herbicides were not confounded with those from the GM feed.

Main effects on reproduction

In the multigeneration study, the parental generation was fed since birth with either GM or nonGM maize diet, and 4 generations were bred. Less pups were born in successive generations in both control and GM fed mice. But the controls tended to do better than GM fed. The average litter size and weight as well as number of weaned pups were in favour of the non-GM maize group. None of the differences reached statistical significance in any one generation, although the trend was clear.
Over all generations, about twice as many pups were lost in the GM group as compared with the control group (14.59 percent vs 7.4 percent). More litters with 8 or more pups were seen in the control compared with GM group. And a greater number of pups were lost at weaning in the GM fed.
Comparison of organ weights did not indicate direct dietary effects in the multigeneration study, except for the kidneys. Kidney weight of females in the GM-fed group were significantly lower in the F2, F3 and F4 generations than controls; and males in the GM-fed group also had significantly lower kidney weight than controls in the F2 generation
The electron microscope investigations revealed differences in the liver cells indicative of reduced core metabolism in the GM-fed mice. In addition, DNA microarray analyses showed  important differences in gene expression between both groups fed non-GM maize and the group fed GM maize.
In the multi-cycle breeding trial, the same differences between GM-fed and controls were evident. and reached statistically significant levels in the 3rd and 4th litters. There were clearly fewer and smaller litters in the GM-fed mice.
The average number of pups born was always lower in the GM fed but did not reach statistical significance before the 3 rd and 4th deliveries. The number of pups at weaning was also always smaller in the GM-fed group. Over all the deliveries, more pups were born in the controls than in the GM group (1035 vs 844).
Consistent with these findings, the life-term feeding trial showed no significant differences in the average life-span of the GM-fed mice compared with controls.

Epigenetic effects of GM maize feed

In the F3 generation of the multigeneration trial, DNA microarray analyses were performed on the lower small intestine. This identified 2 374 genes that were significantly abnormally expressed in GM fed compared with non GM fed mice; with 421 of these showing a 2-fold or greater change from controls. This was more than 3.2 percent of the total 13 034 genes expressed in the lower small intestine. The reproductive and other effects observed could be just the tip of the iceberg as far as the epigenetic changes are concerned. The impacts could take more generations of GM feeding to become fully manifest.
The genes were functionally classified and found to predominate in the pathways of protein biosynthesis and protein metabolism and modification, interleukin signalling and cholesterol biosynthesis.
Epigenetics – the study of heritable changes in gene expression that do not involve alterations in DNA sequence – is a maturing discipline with growing applications in toxicology, cancer, nutrition, and brain and behavioural sciences [5-8]. A change in our diet as far-reaching and profound as GM food cannot be entertained without detailed long term studies of the kind carried out by the Austrian scientists together with analyses using DNA microarrays, proteomics, and metabolic profiling, which are now routine in laboratory and field studies.

References

1. Velimirov A, Binter C and Zentek J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3. Institut für Ernährung, and Forschungsinttitut für biologischen Landbau, Vienna, Austria, November 2008.
2. Ho MW. GM is dangerous and futile. Science in Society 40 (in press).
3. Ho MW. Letter to Nature Biotechnology, systematic bias in favour of finding no adverse impacts of no adverse impacts from GM feed. Science in Society 37, 10, 2008.
4. 4. Ho MW, Cummins J and Saunders PT, GM food nightmare unfolding in the regulatory sham. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 2007, 19, 66-77.
5. 5. Newbold RR, Padilla-Banks E and Jefferson WN. Adverse effects of the model environmental estrogen diethylstilbestrol are transmitted to subsequent generations. Endocrinology 2006, 147, S11-S17.
6. 6. Reamon-Buettner SM, Mutschler V and Borlak J. The next innovation cycle in toxicogenomics: environmental epigenetics. Mutation Res 2008, 639, 158-65.
7. 7. Weidman JR, Dolinoy DC, Murphy SK and Jirtle RL. Cancer susceptibility: epigenetic manifestation of environmental exposures. Cancer J 2007, 13, 9-16.
8. 8. McGowan PO, Meaney MJ and Szyf M. Diet and the epigenetic (re)programming of phenotypic differences in behaviour. Brain Research 2008, 1237, 12-24.

 

_________________________________________________

DATE: 01.05.2009
DIFFERENT ROUNDUP FORMULATIONS LEAD TO EMBRYONIC, UMBILICAL CORD
AND PLACENTAL CELL DEATH AND ARE POORLY ASSESSED

SOURCE: Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering, France
URL: http://www.criigen.org/images/stories/nosdossiers/roundup/pressrelease_rup_0109.pdf


For the first time, the toxicity mechanisms of four different Roundup formulations were studied in human cells. They act at doses where they are not herbicides anymore. The cells were neonatal cells freshly isolated from the umbilical cord, or less sensitive cell lines specially used to measure pollutant toxicity. The various components of these major herbicides were tested because they are among the most common in the world. Their residues are among the major pollutants, and moreover they are authorized as residues contaminating GM foods and feed at the tested levels.

As a matter of fact, Roundup formulations are the most common herbicides used with cultivated GMOs. Roundup Ready soya, the main GMO imported in Europe for food and feed, contains Roundup residues. In this research, the formulations were diluted at minimal doses (up to 100 000 times or more) and they programmed cell death in a few hours in a cumulative manner.

We also noted membrane and DNA damages, and found that the formulations inhibit cell respiration. In addition, it was shown that the mixture of the components used as Roundup adjuvants amplified the action of the active principle called glyphosate; one of its metabolites may be even more toxic. These effects are greatly underestimated by the legislation, which does not take these phenomena into account, but instead simply sets arbitrary contaminant thresholds in food or feed. The rules apply to glyphosate whatever its formulation may be, this is wrong.

The authorizations for using these Roundup herbicides must now clearly be revised, since their toxic effects depend on, and are multiplied by, other compounds used in the mixtures placed on the market; and glyphosate is only one of them. The detailed blood analyses of each mammal which has received this herbicide during regulatory tests before commercial release must be published immediately, since our research points to undesirable effects which are currently masked or hidden from scientific scrutiny.

This independent work was performed by Nora Benachour and Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini in the University of Caen in France. It is published in the Scientific American journal Chemical Research in Toxicology. It was supported by CRIIGEN and the Regional Council of Basse Normandie. The support of the Human Earth Foundation and Denis Guichard Foundation is also acknowledged.

Contact in France: Pr Gilles-Eric Séralini, Biochemistry, Institute of Biology, University of Caen, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen, France. Tel: 33(0)2-31-56-56-84. Fax: 33(0)2-31-56-53- 20. Corinne Lepage President of CRIIGEN criigen@unicaen.fr

”Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic and Placental Cells” by Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Séralini.

(http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n)

_______________________________________________

Herbicide Used in Argentina Could Cause Birth Defects
The Latin American Herald Tribune

The herbicide used on genetically modified soy – Argentina’s main crop – causes brain, intestinal and heart defects in fetuses, according to the results of a scientific investigation

BUENOS AIRES – The herbicide used on genetically modified soy – Argentina’s main crop – could cause brain, intestinal and heart defects in fetuses, according to the results of a scientific investigation released Monday.

Although the study “used amphibian embryos,” the results “are completely comparable to what would happen in the development of a human embryo,” embryology professor Andres Carrasco, one of the study’s authors, told Efe.

“The noteworthy thing is that there are no studies of embryos on the world level and none where glyphosate is injected into embryos,” said the researcher with the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research and director of the Molecular Embryology Laboratory.

The doses of herbicide used in the study “were much lower than the levels used in the fumigations,” and so the situation “is much more serious” that the study suggests because “glyphosate does not degrade,” Carrasco warned.

In Argentina, farmers each year use between 180 and 200 million liters of glyphosate, which was developed by the multinational Monsanto and sold in the United States under the brand name Roundup.

Carrasco said that the research found that “pure glyphosate, in doses lower than those used in fumigation, causes defects ... (and) could be interfering in some normal embryonic development mechanism having to do with the way in which cells divide and die.”

“The companies say that drinking a glass of glyphosate is healthier than drinking a glass of milk, but the fact is that they’ve used us as guinea pigs,” he said.

He gave as an example what occurred in Ituzaingo, a district where 5,000 people live on the outskirts of the central Argentine city of Cordoba, where over the past eight years about 300 cases of cancer associated with fumigations with pesticides have turned up.

“In communities like Ituzaingo it’s already too late, but we have to have a preventive system, to demand that the companies give us security frameworks and, above all, to have very strict regulations for fumigation, which nobody is adhering to out of ignorance or greed,” he said.

The researcher also said that, apart from the research he carried out, “there has to be a serious study” on the effects of glyphosate on human beings, adding that “the state has all the mechanisms for that.”

In the face of the volley of judicial complaints related to the disproportionate use of agrochemicals in the cultivation of GM soy, last February the Health Ministry created a group to investigate the problem in four Argentine provinces.

Argentina is the world’s third-largest exporter of soy

_________________________________________________

 

 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•