Archive for the ‘GMO’s’ Category

This is a great article by Jeffrey Smith from Urban Garden Magazine a few years ago. It’s even more relevant now with all the new approvals of GMO seeds.  I have the beginning of the article below, follow the link at the bottom to read the rest.  Mom

Something doesn’t quite add up about genetically modified (GM) foods.

Big biotech claims that genetic engineering is a necessary step towards feeding the world’s growing population.  And yet debate still rages as to whether GM crops actually increase yields at all.  Furthermore, the UN recently stated that 30,000 people a day were starving to death, but not because of underproduction of crops.  It’s simply through lack of access.

Independent scientific studies raised serious alarm bells over the safety of GM foods over a decade ago.  But while this made front-page headlines in European newspapers, the North American mainstream media were conspiratorially silent.

Biotech companies stand to make billions from their seed patents.  Governments and supreme courts have sanctioned the patenting of life itself.  The planet’s food supply is becoming increasingly dominated by fewer and fewer players.

If the biotech industry’s stated intention of feeding the world is misguided or even misdirecting, is there another political agenda behind GM food? Have we been mis-sold?  Were we even given a choice in the first place?

Jeffrey M. Smith, international bestselling author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, reveals the shocking truth behind GM foods and the huge effort by governments and Biotech corporations to keep it out of the mainstream media and outside of your awareness.

It looks the same—the bread, pies, sodas, even corn on the cob. So much of what we eat every day looks just like it did 20 years ago. But something profoundly different has happened without our knowledge or consent. And according to leading doctors, what we don’t know may already be hurting us big time.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) publicly condemned genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply, saying they posed “a serious health risk.” They called on the US government to implement an immediate moratorium on all genetically modified (GM) foods, and urged physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients.

GM-What?

Genetic engineering is quite distinct from selective breeding because it involves taking genes from a completely different species and inserting them into the DNA of a plant or animal. The long term effects of this for our health and our planet’s biodiversity are unknown.

AAEM, an “Academy of Firsts,” was the first US medical organization to describe or acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome, chemical sensitivity, food allergy/addiction, and a host of other medical issues. But the potential for harm from GMOs dwarfs anything they have identified thus far. It can impact everyone who eats.

More than 70% of the foods on supermarket shelves contain derivatives of the eight GM foods on the market—soy, corn, oil from canola and cottonseed, sugar from sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, and a small amount of zucchini and crook neck squash. The biotech industry hopes to genetically engineer virtually all remaining vegetables, fruits, grains, and beans (not to mention animals).

The two primary reasons why plants are engineered are to allow them to either drink poison, or produce poison. The poison drinkers are called herbicide tolerant. They’re inserted with bacterial genes that allow them to survive otherwise deadly doses of toxic herbicide. Biotech companies sell the seed and herbicide as a package deal, and US farmers use hundreds of millions of pounds more herbicide because of these types of GM crops. The poison producers are called Bt crops. Inserted genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus Thuringiensis produce an insect-killing pesticide called Bt-toxin in every cell of the plant. Both classes of GM crops are linked to dangerous side effects.

Doctors and Patients: Just Say No to GMOs

“Now that soy is genetically engineered,” warns Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles, “it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.” How dangerous are GM foods? World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava, PhD, believes they are the major reason for the recent rise in serious illnesses in the US.

The range of what GMOs might do to us is breathtaking. “Several animal studies,” according to the AAEM, reveal a long list of disorders, including: “infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, [faulty] insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”

“There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects,” says the AAEM position paper. Based on established scientific criteria, “there is causation.”

Difficult to Trace the Damage

Outside the carefully controlled laboratory setting, it is more difficult to confidently assign GMOs as the cause for a particular set of diseases, especially since there are no human clinical trials and no agency that even attempts to monitor GMO-related health problems among the population. “If there are problems,” says biologist David Schubert, PhD, of the Salk Institute, “we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.”

GM crops were widely introduced in 1996. Within nine years, the incidence of people in the US with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled—from 7% to 13%. Visits to the emergency room due to allergies doubled from 1997 to 2002. And overall food related illnesses doubled from 1994 to 2001, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Obesity, diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, and autism are also among the conditions that are skyrocketing in the US.

The Lyme Induced Autism Foundation, a patient advocacy group, is not waiting for studies to prove that GMOs cause or worsen Lyme, autism, and the many other diseases on the rise since gene-spliced foods were introduced. Like AAEM, the LIA Foundation says there is more than enough evidence of harm in animal feeding studies for them to “urge doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets” and for “individuals, especially those with autism, Lyme disease, and associated conditions, to avoid” GM foods.

Another patient group, those suffering from eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS), is more confident about the GMO origins of their particular disease. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan in the late 1980s. It killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. The characteristics of EMS made it much easier for authorities to identify the epidemic and its cause. It only affected those who consumed the pills; symptoms came on almost immediately; and its effects were horrific—including unbearable pain and paralysis. There was even a unique, easy-to-measure change in the white blood cell count. But even though EMS was practically screaming to be discovered, it still took the medical community more than four years—and it was almost missed.

“The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” David Suzuki, renowned Canadian geneticist.

What if the GMOs throughout our food supply are creating common diseases which come on slowly? It would be nearly impossible to confirm them as the cause. “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients,” says AAEM president Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, “but need to know how to ask the right questions.” The patients at greatest risk are the very young. “Children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods, says Dr. Schubert. They become “the experimental animals,” our collective canaries in the coal mine.

Warnings by Government Scientists Ignored and Denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems back in the early 1990s. According to secret documents made public from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, new “super” diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests. 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 the scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies—who have a long history of lying about the toxicity of their earlier products—to determine if their own foods are safe.

After overseeing GMO policy at the FDA, Mr. Taylor worked on GMO issues at the USDA, and then later became Monsanto’s vice president. In the summer of 2009, he went through the revolving door again. Taylor was appointed by the Obama administration as the de facto US food safety czar at the FDA.

Dangerously Few Studies, Untraceable Diseases

“Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?” This was the concluding question posed in a 2007 review of published scientific literature on the health risks of GM plants, showing that the number of studies and available data are “very scarce.”

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

When consumers realize the dangers of GM foods and that the FDA has abdicated its responsibility to protect us, they usually want to opt out of this massive feeding experiment. In fact, most Americans already say they would avoid GMO brands if given a choice.

It wouldn’t take a majority of us to kick GMOs out of our food supply. Kraft and other food companies wouldn’t wait until half their market share is gone before telling their suppliers to switch to the non-GM corn, soy, etc. By using GM ingredients, they don’t offer customers a single advantage. The food doesn’t taste better, last longer, or have more nutrients. Thus, if even a tiny percentage of US consumers—say 5% or 15 million people—started avoiding GMO brands, the millions in lost sales revenue would likely force brands to remove all GM ingredients, like they already have in Europe.

But the FDA doesn’t want to give us the choice. They ignore the wishes of nine out of ten Americans for mandatory GMO labeling in order to promote the economic interests of just five biotech companies.

The Shocking Evidence of Harm from GMOs

Genetically modified (GM) foods have not been scientifically tested on human beings. (The only published human feeding study had ominous results – see later.) Instead, animals are used as our surrogates, but the few published animal safety studies are generally short-term and superficial. In fact, industry-funded research is widely criticized as designed to avoid finding problems.  They’ve got bad science—down to a science. Even still, the accumulated evidence of harm is compelling people to read ingredient labels and avoid brands with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Infant Mortality and Reproductive Disorders

Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=4302

Read more, great Monday Mania posts here: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/monday-mania-192012/

Read more, great Fat Tuesday posts here: http://realfoodforager.com/fat-tuesday-january-10-2012/

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2012/01/real-food-wednesday-142012.html

Save

OWS – Farmers March – Jim Gerritsen

Support our Farmer’s and support our Food!  xoxo  Mom

Read more, great Monday Mania posts here: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/monday-mania-12192011/

Read more, great Fat Tuesday posts here: http://realfoodforager.com/2011/12/fat-tuesday-december-20-2011/

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2011/12/real-food-wednesday-12212011.html

Read more, great Simple Lives Thursday posts here: http://gnowfglins.com/2011/12/21/simple-lives-thursday-75/

Read more, great Fight Back Friday posts here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-december-23rd/

GMOs in the News – November 2011

Hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving  – Mom

The good new is that the California Ballot initiative has been filed and we should be ready to start gathering signatures In early January.  If you are in California, please join us – even a few hours a month – to help gather signatures from January thorough April.  If you are not in California and want GMOs labeled – please donate!  Even $5 will make a difference. And getting GMOs labeled in CA will get them labeled for everyone in the US. Companies are not going to have separate labels for one state.

Here’s the donation link:    http://www.labelgmos.org/?recruiter_id=958

How much insecticide do Bt plants actually produce?
New publication shows inadequacies in risk assessment
TestBiotech (Munich), 21 November 2011
http://www.testbiotech.de/en/node/578

A new publication by an international research consortium has revealed several inadequacies in current approaches to risk assessment of genetically engineered plants. The publication deals with methods used for measurement in so-called Bt-plants. These plants produce an insecticidal protein (a so-called Bt toxin) that originates from soil bacteria (Bacillus thuringiensis). One example is maize MON810 which is cultivated in some countries in the EU, many others can be imported and used in food and feed. Now for the first time, joint research involving four laboratories has shown that the results produced by industry and other institutions so far are not reliably reproducible and comparable because they are not determined and validated by standardized methods.

The actual content of these Bt toxins is highly relevant for assessing risks for the environment, and also for preventing resistance in pest insects. Without reliable data, the safety of these genetically engineered plants cannot be properly assessed.

András Székács from the Plant Protection Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences summarized relevant findings: “Our data emphasize the importance of standardized protocols among laboratories and provide compelling evidence that, currently, reproducibility and comparability of reported Bt toxin measurements is low. Hence, individual results of Bt toxin concentrations cannot be taken at face value as a definitive result without further validation. An outstanding example is the reporting of Bt concentrations in pollen of MON 810 maize, stemming from very few individual studies only.”

The content of Bt toxin in pollen is a pivotal question when it comes to environmental risk assessment and regulatory decision-making. The pollen can be taken up by various pollinating insects such as honey bees and wild bees, hoverflies and many more. It can also be ingested by butterfly caterpillars that feed on pollen-dusted plants. Toxic pollen is extremely rare in nature but has become wide-spread where genetically engineered Bt-plants are grown. Of similar importance is the Bt content in roots since it might affect important soil organisms and their food web. But also the Bt content in those parts of the plants that are used for food and feed is critical since open questions remain concerning their potential effects on health. Additionally, only very little research has investigated the impact of various environmental factors on the Bt toxin production in different Bt plant varieties and plant parts. Thus, reliable methods for measuring Bt concentrations in Bt plants that can be compared among studies are indispensable and urgently needed.

Read the rest here:  http://gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13513:how-much-insecticide-do-bt-plants-produce

Boulder Citizens Say No to GMOs, Will the Commissioners Listen?

By Matt Spaeth on November 16, 2011

In Boulder, CO, the fight to keep GMOs off county lands is entering the final rounds. After months of deliberation, an agricultural policy group has recommended that GMOs be allowed on open space land and the people of Boulder county are making sure their leaders know they do not approve. Their message is being heard and the collective thorn is growing in Monsanto’s side. Will the county commissioners side with the corporations or the people?

The joint session of the Food and Agriculture Policy Council (FAPC) and the Parks and Open Space Advisory Commission (POSAC) saw a huge turnout Tuesday night at the Longmont Convention Center. The purpose of this meeting was to publicly present and receive comments on the current agricultural policy recommendations set forth by the members of the Cropland Policy Advisory Group (CPAG). The Boulder Cropland Policy encompasses many aspects of agriculture, but the main issue is whether to let farmers grow GMO crops on public open space land. While this group could not come to a consensus on the GMO issue, the majority of the members recommended that GMOs be allowed on open space land.

Boulder, known for its progressive stance on sustainability and the environment, naturally attracts more health-oriented people than the national average. Local surveys have shown that 71% of the people do not approve of GMOs being grown on county land. Proponents for both sides of the issue were in attendance, but the crowd’s reaction to the meeting’s proceedings made it overwhelmingly clear who was the majority. Concerned citizens arrived carrying posters and the applauses for non-GMO statements were so long and numerous, the facilitator requested they be withheld.

Each citizen was given three minutes to speak. The vast majority expressed their concerns about the safety of GMO crops, their associated chemical application, and possible contamination issues. They spoke out against the conflict of interest, political influence and corporate greed that has affected national GMO public policy.

Members of the Boulder GMKnow Group, a local non-GMO awareness group organized by Scott and Mary Smith, were not satisfied with the recommended agricultural policy and wrote their own. This new policy, called the Citizens Cropland Policy was read by 25 members in 3-minute intervals and is available for viewing and endorsement on their website.

The opposite camp showed up as well. Standing out like sore thumbs, the large men, wearing blazers and cowboy hats, stood mostly in the back of the room. Their arguments were that GMOs made it easier for them to make more money.

During the public comments, an unidentified man in red shirt, who expounded on the benefits of GMOs to the panel, was later questioned as to his affiliations by an elderly man in the crowd. The red-shirted man pushed the elderly man and told him to “sit down”. It was later revealed to the panel that the red-shirted man is a Monsanto employee.

Read the rest here:  http://foodintegritynow.org/2011/11/16/boulder-citizens-say-no-to-gmos-will-the-commissioners-listen/

Read more, great Monday Mania Posts here: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/2011/11/monday-mania-11282011/

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2011/11/real-food-wednesday-11302011.html

Read more, great Simple Lives Thursday posts here: http://gnowfglins.com/2011/11/30/simple-lives-thursday-72/

Save

A Parent’s Guide to GMOs and the Ballot Initiative

This is from a great brochure created by one of the people working on the campaign – let’s pass this along to all the moms we know and get the word out! Hope you have a great week.  – Mom

Given the questions, we have a right to know what’s in our foods.

Stand with us. Join us to require integrity in food labeling.

What are GMO’S

Genetically Modified organisms, often called genetically engineered (GE). The correct scientific term is “transgenics.” This is a process whereby the genes of one species are inserted into another species. For the purposes of this initiative, the term does not include hybrids, selective breeding, grafting or MAS (Marker Assisted Selection)

What’s your Rush?

            New studies point to increased health risks.  Numerous vegetables, fruits and animal products are being developed and considered for approval.  We are concerned with the recent deregulation of the high cross pollinator, alfalfa.  We want to do all we can to ensure our children have the option of organic dairy and meats.

What has changed?

            In the last 15 years, novel proteins, allergens and toxins have been introduced into the American food supply in order to enhance profitability for the food industry. No human trials were ever conducted to assess the safety of these chemicals on children, leading other developed countries to take a precautionary approach and these ingredients were not introduced into the food supplies in other developed countries. Increasing scientific evidence continues to demonstrate the impact that these chemicals are having on our health and particularly on the health of our children, their developing immune systems, nervous systems and gastrointestinal and digestive systems (in which 70% of a child’s immune systems is found).

Our Intimate Relationship with Food

In 1996, the United States adopted widespread use of genetically modified crops due to growing public concern over the health risks associated with the industrial spraying of insecticidal and pesiticidal toxins.

In an effort to reduce the spraying of these toxins, scientists began using biotechnology to engineer these pesticides and insecticides into the plants themselves.

As a result, chemical use has increased to an extreme amount of around 180 million more pounds per year being used.

As these ingredients were introduced around the world ten years ago, government agencies in Europe, Asia, Australia, Japan, Russia and over 30 developed countries required them to be listed on food labels, so that consumers could make informed choices when it came to feeding their families.

In the United States, our regulatory agencies do not require these genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled.

So, unlike other developed countries, we have not been informed that almost 70% of our corn, 90% of our soy and 75% of our processed food now contain neurotoxins, novel proteins and allergens.

Today one out of every three children suffers from allergies, asthma, autism or ADHD. It appears that we have unknowingly and without informed consent engaged our children in one of the largest human trials in history.
Ten years into this human trial, our children are trying to tell us something.

Shouldn’t we listen?

Worldwide Labeling

There are over 40 countries who require labeling of GMO’s. Many US companies sell them GMO-free versions of products sold in the US that contain them.

Number of Crops Worldwide

USA: Soy/93%, Corn 86%, Cotton 93%, Papaya 80%, Canola 93%, Zucchini 13%, Sugar beets (which can be listed as ‘sugar’ in any processed food) 95%

Why do we want them Labeled:

         The main reason we want them labeled is that we see enough independent data to suggest possible health risks. We don’t want to eat them but we can’t know which foods they are in if they aren’t labeled.  It’s a basic consumer right we are asking for– given the conflicting data and our mistrust in an industry that has been proven to hide negative findings, we have the right to know what we are buying and putting in our children’s mouths.

The Initiative

A grassroots movement to get an initiative that would require mandatory labeling of genetically modified food.

In the U.S., 24 states have an initiative process. What this means is that if the people want a law and they cannot get their legislators to enact it, the people can come together and get the law on the ballot to vote for it directly.

It’s time to send a strong, direct message to those who govern us, whether it be agency or elected, that we want genetically engineered foods labeled.

What can we do now?

Spread the word: Tell everyone you know. Especially everyone who lives in California.

Volunteer:  If you live in CA: Sign the Pledge to gather Signatures for this Fall.

Join the Team: Visit the site to see what we want to create and if you see yourself wanting it.

Donate: We are a grassroots movement and need everyone’s support. Initiatives are very expensive. Those who want to see a labeling vote fail have tremendous resources to try and silence us. If you’re not in California, please donate! Even a few dollars will make a difference and getting labeling here will make it happen for the whole country.

Learn more at the links below

2012 Ballot Initiative Campaign Website: 

www.labelgmos.org

www.organicconsumers.org

www.centerforfoodsafety.org

www.responsibletechnology.org

You can also become part of our Facebook page to get the latest details and updates for our Community.     https://www.facebook.com/labelgmos

Read more, great Monday Mania posts here: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/2011/11/monday-mania-1172011-2/

Read more, great Fat Tuesday posts here: http://realfoodforager.com/2011/11/fat-tuesday-november-8-2011/

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2011/11/real-food-wednesday-11092011.html

Read more, great Pennywise Platter Thursday posts here: http://www.thenourishinggourmet.com/2011/11/pennywise-platter-thursday-1110.html

Read more, great Simple Lives Thursday posts here: http://gnowfglins.com/2011/11/09/simple-lives-thursday-69/

Read more, great Fight Back Friday posts here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-november-11th/

Save

Sunday, October 16^th is World Food Day!

There will be rallies and events all over the U.S.  Find one near you here:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/index.cfm

Some great stories in the news this week:

Gary Hirshberg, CEO of Stonyfield Farm, on fighting GMOs

“What people need to understand with GE, or genetically engineered, [aka GMO] crops is that the seeds are owned by chemical companies. When we sanction the unrestricted use of GE crops, we’re sanctioning the unrestricted use of these chemicals, which are already making us sick.

I’m hopeful. As I travel the country, I hear that people want freedom of choice. Eighty-seven percent of Americans say that genetically modified foods should be labeled and that they don’t want to buy GE crops and food grown from GE seeds. Consumers care, farmers care, even nonorganic farmers care because they don’t want to be told what kind of seeds to grow and they don’t want to pay the higher costs demanded by these companies.

Read more here:  http://newhope360.com/non-gmo/know-your-gmos-hidden-ingredients-safe-labels-and-taking-action

In Free Market, No GMO

Jan 222011

Think. Should farmers & consumers in Vermont have as many rights as those in Europe, Australia and New Zealand?

The European Union (EU) countries implemented mandatory labeling requirements for genetically engineered soy and corn. By the end of 1998, nearly all the grocery chains and fast food restaurants in the EU had eliminated genetically engineered ingredients from their products.

Australian and New Zealand food manufacturers must label all processed food products that contain GMO (genetically engineered, or biotech) ingredients. As a result of this labeling requirement, Australia’s largest food conglomerate, Goodman Fielder, eliminated GMO from its product line. Other manufacturers and grocery chains are following suit.

In Vermont, however, we have a new governor who killed the 2000 GMO labelling act when he was a Senator. “…A measure mandating labels on genetically modified seeds and food, liability for the purveyors of the technology and registration of the location of transgenic crops with town clerks flew through the Senate Agriculture Committee. But its good fortunes ended in the Finance Committee. Democratic Sen. Peter Shumlin voted with Republicans to table the bill.”

“Shumlin told Sen. Cheryl Rivers (D), then chair of the Agriculture Committee, that he was “unwilling to support a bill requiring labeling of genetically modified foods because the Democrats had already lost the contributions of pharmaceutical companies, and he was not willing to sacrifice contributions from the food industry,” according to the Rutland Herald.

Read more here:  http://senatorwagner.com/2011/01/in-free-market-no-gmo/

Buy  No GMO t-shirts

This is the winning t-shirt from the contest sponsored by the Institute for Responsible Technology, 25% of the proceed go to them and it’s on sale until 10/11 for only $10.00 – I thought it was a great design!

http://www.threadless.com/product/3228/GMOS_OMG/

And one from Moms for Safe Food too!  This is the Men’s T – there are women’s too.

They say:

My husband came up with a great slogan and I made them up for café press. We are not making any money on these, just selling them at Café Press’s base price.

I just like them (we all have one) and wanted to offer them to others.

Link:

http://www.cafepress.com/momsforsafefood

So many good things in the news this week! 🙂

Read more, great Monday Mania posts here: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/2011/10/monday-mania-10102011/

Read more, great Fat Tuesday posts here: http://realfoodforager.com/2011/10/fat-tuesday-october-11-2011/

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2011/10/real-food-wednesday-10122011.html

Read more, great Simples Lives Thursday posts here: http://gnowfglins.com/2011/10/12/simple-lives-thursday-65/

Read more, great Pennywise Platter posts here: http://www.thenourishinggourmet.com/2011/10/pennywise-platter-thursday-1013.html

Read more, great Fight Back Friday posts here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-october-14th/

GMOs in the News – Sept 2011 edition

Lots in the news about GMOs  this month. Share this post with your friends and families. The more people that learn about GMOs, the better!       Mom

Organic Versus Genetically Engineered Crops: Some Rays of Light

August 30, 2011

Recent court decisions may help. Plus, new research shows how dangerous Monsanto’s GMOs really are.

Natural organic crops need to be protected from potential contamination by synthetic, genetically engineered seeds—especially in the face of less government oversight of GMOs. Natural seeds face the same Catch-22 as supplements: they cannot be patented, whereas synthetic seeds (and drugs) can be—and are therefore huge profit centers for Big Agro and Big Pharma, not to mention the government agencies in bed with them. They also need protection from the increased use of pesticides used on GE crops, which are also carried by the winds.

Our colleagues at ANH International reported recently that two court cases in the US might be turning the tide in favor of organic farmers over GE crops:

• Last December, the California Court of Appeal found the Western Farm Service guilty of “negligence, trespass, and nuisance” against Jacobs Organic Farm and the Del Cabo Organic Cooperative. In 2006 Western Farm applied GE organophosphate (OP) pesticides to Brussels sprouts grown on land neighboring the organic farms. Winds carried these pesticides onto the organic produce and contaminated it—making it unsalable as organic. Even though Western Farm claimed to have taken precautions to avoid pesticide drift, it still happened—and fortunately the court found them guilty.
• Last month, after ten years of futile complaints to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the Minnesota Court of Appeals found the Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company guilty of negligence, trespass, and nuisance on Oluf and Debra Johnson’s organic farm. Once again the pesticides sprayed on the oil company’s farms spread to the Johnsons’ land.

One of the big problems with GE crops is that they are responsible for the greatly increased use of pesticides which can easily contaminate organic crops. Now organic farms have legal precedents to sue conventional farms (and those using GMOs) for pesticide contamination.

Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.anh-usa.org/organic-v-ge-crops-rays-of-light/

Monsanto GM Corn in Peril: Beetle develops Bt-resistance

Rady Ananda, Contributing Writer
Nature herself may be the best opponent of genetically modified crops and pesticides.  Not only plants, but insects are also developing resistance.  The Western rootworm beetle – one of the most serious threats to corn – has developed resistance to Monsanto’s Bt-corn, and entire crops are being lost.

Farmers from several Midwest states began reporting root damage to corn that was specifically engineered with a toxin to kill the rootworm.  Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann recently confirmed that the beetle, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera, has developed resistance to the Bt protein, Cry3Bb1.

Bacillus thuringiensis – Bt – is a bacterium that kills insects.  Different proteins are engineered into cotton as well as corn plants.
Two-thirds of all US corn is genetically modified per the USDA, and the bulk of that is Bt-corn. Monsanto has the biggest market share in the US, reporting about 35% in 2009.

In response to the July 2011 study, Monsanto said only the “YieldGard® VT Triple and Genuity® VT Triple PRO™ corn products” are affected.

“It appears he has demonstrated a difference in survival in the lab, but it is too early to tell whether there are implications for growers in the field.”

However, Kansas State researchers summarized the study, indicating that the specimens tested came from fields suffering severe rootworm damage and compared them to those from unaffected fields.  In other words, it was a field study.

Resistance developed where the same Bt corn had been grown at least three years in a row.  Gassmann found “a significant positive correlation between the number of years Cry3Bb1 maize had been grown in a field and the survival of rootworm populations on Cry3Bb1 maize in bioassays.”

Ag Professional’s Colleen Scherer explains that “the Cry3Bb1 toxin is the major one deployed against rootworms. There is no ‘putting the genie back in the bottle,’ and resistance in these areas is a problem that won’t go away.”

Read the rest here:  http://www.activistpost.com/2011/08/monsanto-gm-corn-in-peril-beetle.html

EU bans GM-contaminated honey from general sale

Bavarian beekeepers forced to declare their honey as genetically modified because of contamination from nearby Monsanto crops

• Leigh Phillips
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 7 September 2011 11.28 BST

Honey bees on a honeycomb in Germany. A European court has ruled that honey which contains traces of pollen from genetically modified crops needs special authorisation before it can be sold. Photograph: Heribert Proepper/AP

The European Union’s highest court on Tuesday ruled that honey which contains trace amounts of pollen from genetically modified (GM) corn must be labelled as GM produce and undergo full safety authorisation before it can be sold as food.

In what green groups are calling a “groundbreaking” ruling, the decision could force the EU to strengthen its already near-zero tolerance policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Bavarian beekeepers, some 500m from a test field for a modified maize crop developed by Monsanto – one of only two GM crops authorised as safe to be cultivated in Europe – claimed their honey had been “contaminated” by pollen from the plant.

The European court of justice found in their favour, a ruling that should offer grounds for the beekeepers to claim compensation in a German court.

But the court’s finding also potentially threatens recent EU legislation, introduced in July this year, that permits traces of GMOs in animal feed without a safety review.

Mute Schimpf, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, said that the ruling “would confirm that existing laws allowing traces of unauthorised GM contamination are insufficient and would need revising.”

French Green MEP José Bové, an ex-farmer well-known for his destruction of a McDonald’s franchise in the south of France and the uprooting of GM crops in Brazil, said that the only protection farmers can have is for a complete ban on GMOs in Europe. “Beekeepers are powerless to prevent the contamination of their honey by GM pollen, as farmers are for their crops, and thus powerless to prevent the tainting of the foodstuffs they produce and the integrity of their product.

“The only sure way to prevent this is by precluding the cultivation of GMOs.”

Greenpeace, describing the traces of pollen in the honey as “genetic pollution” said that Monsanto and the Bavarian state should be held liable for the beekeepers’ losses as a result of their product having to be labelled as containing GMOs.

However, agricultural specialists criticised the ruling, saying that the decision has no grounding in science.

Guy Poppy, the director of the centre for biological sciences at the University of Southampton, told the Guardian: “There is no safety issue. This honey is as safe as any other.”

(Note from Mom – if you read the rest of the article the Biotech ’employee’ says “they’ve been judged safe” – actually they haven’t…)

Read the rest here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/07/europe-honey-gm/print

And don’t forget:

It’s Our Right to Know

If you live in California (and forward this to those you know who do!)

There is a GMO Labeling 2012 Ballot Initiative in the works.

Go to the site, and sign up to help and/or give a donation.

http://labelgmos.org/

Read more, great Monday Mania posts here: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/2011/09/monday-mania-9122011/

Read more, great Fat Tuesday posts here: http://realfoodforager.com/2011/09/fat-tuesday-september-13-2011/

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2011/09/real-food-wednesday-9142001.html

Read more, great Simple Lives Thursday posts here: http://gnowfglins.com/2011/09/14/simple-lives-thursday-61/

Read more, great Fight Back Friday posts here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-september-16th/

This is brilliant Ted video about GMOs and food allergies. Robyn doesn’t call them that but that’s what she’s talking about.  This food is hurting our children!  It’s time to stand up and take action. If you live in California go to LabelGMOs.org and sign up to collect signature. It’s time to tell everyone you know about GMOs. With the planting of GMO alfalfa there is going to be crop contamination and even organics won’t be safe anymore…

Mom

If you live in CA (or anywhere else in the world 🙂 go visit LabelGMOs.org – sign up to help or donate. Even a few dollars will make a difference!

Read more great, Monday Mania posts here: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/2011/09/monday-mania-952011/

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2011/09/real-food-wednesday-9711.html

Read more, great Simple Lives Thursday posts here: http://gnowfglins.com/2011/09/08/simple-lives-thursday-60/

Read more great, Pennywise Platter Thursday posts here: http://www.thenourishinggourmet.com/2011/09/pennywise-platter-thursday-98.html

Read more, great Fight Back Friday post here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-september-9th/

It’s Our Right to Know

If you live in California (and forward this to those you know who do!)

There is a GMO Labeling 2012 Ballot Initiative in the works.

Go to the site, and sign up to help and/or give a donation.

http://labelgmos.org/

Can GMOs Help End World Hunger?

By John Robbins

Can genetically engineered foods help feed the hungry? Are anti-GMO activists and over-zealous environmentalists standing in the way of the hungry being fed?

The hope that GMO foods might bring solutions to malnutrition and world hunger was never more dramatically illustrated than when Time magazine ran a cover story titled “Grains of Hope.” The article joyfully announced the development of a genetically engineered “golden rice.” This new strain of GM rice has genes from viruses and daffodils spliced into its genetic instructions. The result is a form of rice that is a golden-yellow color (much like daffodil flowers), and that produces beta-carotene, which the human body normally converts into Vitamin A.

Nearly a million children die every year because they are weakened by Vitamin A deficiencies and an additional 350,000 go blind. Golden rice, said Time, will be a godsend for the half of humanity that depends on rice for its major staple. Merely eating this rice could prevent blindness and death.

The development of golden rice was, it seemed, compelling and inspiring evidence that GM crops are the answer to malnutrition and hunger. Time quoted former U.S. President Jimmy Carter: “Responsible biotechnology is not the enemy, starvation is.”

Shortly after the Time cover story, Monsanto and other biotechnology companies launched a $50 million marketing campaign, including $32 million in TV and print advertising. The ads, complete with soft focus fields and smiling children, said that “biotech foods could help end world hunger.”

Other ad campaigns have followed. One Monsanto ad tells the public: “Biotechnology is one of tomorrow’s tools in our hands today. Slowing its acceptance is a luxury our hungry world cannot afford.”

Within a few months, the biotech industry had spent far more on these ads than it had on developing golden rice. Their purpose? “Unless I’m missing something,” wrote Michael Pollan in The New York Times Magazine, “the aim of this audacious new advertising campaign is to impale people like me — well-off first-worlders dubious about genetically engineered food — on the horns of a moral dilemma … If we don’t get over our queasiness about eating genetically modified food, kids in the third world will go blind.”

The implication of the ads is that lifesaving food is being held hostage by anti-science activists.

In the years since Time proclaimed the promises of golden rice, however, we’ve learned a few things.

For one thing, we’ve learned that golden rice will not grow in the kinds of soil that it must to be of value to the world’s hungry. To grow properly, it requires heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides — expensive inputs unaffordable to the very people that the variety is supposed to help. And we’ve also learned that golden rice requires large amounts of water — water that might not be available in precisely those areas where Vitamin A deficiency is a problem, and where farmers cannot afford costly irrigation projects.

And one more thing — it turns out that golden rice doesn’t work, even in theory. Malnourished people are not able to absorb Vitamin A in this form. And even if they could, they’d have to eat an awful lot of the stuff. An 11-year-old boy would have to eat 27 bowls of golden rice a day in order to satisfy his minimum requirement for the vitamin.

Read the rest here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/gmo-food_b_914968.html

Voluntary non-GMO verification aids consumer choice in Boulder County

To label or not to label

By Cindy Sutter Camera Food Editor

Silk Soymilk and some of its other beverages recently completed the verification process of the Non-GMO Project.

Why the careful wording? Given the ubiquity of genetically modified organisms in some U.S. commodity crops — 93 percent of soybeans grown in the United State are genetically modified according to Craig Shiesley of Silk — no product is able to call itself completely free of GMOs. However, Silk and some other companies, such as Whole Foods with its 365 products, have sought to do is to get as close as possible, using a certification process from the non-profit Non-GMO Project, which holds products to a standard of 99.1 percent GMO free.

Shiesley, general manager of the Silk business, says the verification process for the company’s soymilk, coconut milk and almond milk took 12 to 14 months, a surprise for the company, which had always sourced non-GMO ingredients.

“The reason (the verification process) elevates this to another level if that it goes from verifying the ingredient to verifying the entire process,” Shiesley says. “For example, (it verifies) that there’s no cross contamination in the dehullers.”

GMO in the food supply

Currently labeling for GMOs is not required in the United States, as it is in European Union countries and Japan. The percentage of U.S. processed foods that include at least one genetically engineered food is estimated at about 60 to 70 percent, according to a 2010 fact sheet from Colorado State University. Even foods labeled as natural, a term that has no legal meaning, may contain genetically engineered crops; however, USDA certified organic foods forbid GMOs.

Do GMOs matter?

The answer depends on whom you talk to. Companies such as Monsanto, DuPont and Bayer that supply genetically engineered seed, say the crops, often engineered to be resistant to herbicides such as Monsanto’s Roundup, are nutritionally identical to non-modified crops. The U.S Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration agree with this position. They say the engineering allows them to grow crops more efficiently and with fewer, less toxic pesticides.

Opponents say the effects on human health and the environment have not been fully tested. They fear genetic modification may be involved in an increase in food allergies and other problems, and they say weeds may become resistant to herbicides, requiring more toxic herbicides to kill them.

Labeling

In addition, they argue that a U.S. decision not to require products with GMOs to be labeled has kept consumers in the dark about how deeply genetically-engineered crops reach into the food chain. Surveys have shown that many consumers don’t know that they regularly consume genetically engineered foods. For retailers with a consciousness about food and how it’s produced, the lack of labeling means they have no way to verify GMOs in products unless the items are certified organic.

Mark Retzloff, president and chairman of Alfalfa’s, says the grocery has worked hard to verify that the canola and other oils in its bulk dispensers are not from made from genetically modified seed crops. The store has verified that the dairy products it stocks are from cows not dosed with hormones. However, unless the product is certified organic or has the new Non-GMO label, the store can’t verify if cows have been fed genetically-modifed grain. He is particularly concerned about genetically modified alfalfa, which the U.S. approved for use earlier this year. While certified organic milk producers won’t use it, the possibility of contamination through the cross-pollination of organic and GMO crops, as has happened with corn and soy is concerning, he says. In addition, as the genetically engineered seed becomes available, farmers may have a hard time buying non-GMO seed.

“From my own experience at Aurora Dairy, we buy about 40,000 to 50,000 tons of alfalfa hay. It’s all organic. If we start having trouble doing that, it restricts our ability to produce organic milk,” he says, adding that milk is a gateway product into organics for many consumers.

Whole Foods is currently putting its 365 brand products through Non-GMO verification. The products don’t currently carry the label. However, customers can go to Whole Food website and click to find Non-GMO certified products.

“It’s a significant focus of the company right now to work on verification,” says Ben Friedland, regional marketing coordinator for the Rocky Mountain Region.

Asked about the company’s position on GMOs, Friedland says: “We believe in farmers’ right to farm non-GMO crops and our customers’ right to choose whether they want GMOs. We work to provide opportunities for both our stakeholders,” Friedland says.

Shiesley of Silk says the Non-GMO verification is extremely valuable to his company. For the Silk products that are not organic — the company switched some of its Silk line from organic to natural in 2009, Shiesley says because the company wanted to source soybeans domestically — the non-GMO verification offers assurances.

Shiesley says he also believes the label will raise awareness.

“I hope we’re at a tipping point with consumer understanding toward Non-GMO,” he says. “Unlike organic labeling which went through legislation and took eight-plus years, the industry can self-regulate … I don’t think we can wait five years plus with this.”

Read the rest here:

http://www.dailycamera.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=18546106&siteId=21

Read more, great Monday Mania posts here: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/2011/08/monday-mania-882011/

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2011/08/real-food-wednesday-8102011.html

Read more, great Simple Lives Thursday posts here: http://gnowfglins.com/2011/08/11/simple-lives-thursday-56/

Read more, great Pennywise Platter Thursday posts here: http://www.thenourishinggourmet.com/2011/08/pennywise-platter-thursday-811.html

Read more, great Fight Back Friday posts here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-august-12/

Since the early 1990’s there have been genetically modified organisms in our food. GMOs – short for genetically modified organisms – are man-made organism created in a laboratory and patented by a corporation or the USDA. GMOs are created by a process called genetic engineering.  Many people have been asking for required labeling of GMO food, as already exists in thirty other countries. And there are a growing number of countries, like Ireland, Japan and Egypt that have completely banned the cultivation of GMO crops.

GMOs are not created the same way as traditional cross-breeding. Traditional cross-breeding is creating natural hybrids, such as crossing two varieties of roses, different types of squashes, or different breeds of dogs or cats. GMOs are made by actually splicing a gene from a virus or another species into the GMO seed.  Some examples are, fish genes being spliced into tomatoes, human genes in corn, mouse genes in potatoes.

Since the 1990’s, people have been asking for GMO food to be labeled.  We’ve been asking the USDA, the FDA, our legislators and the courts. They are not listening, and it’s time for us to speak for ourselves.

If you live in California, there is a Ballot Initiative in the works for the 2012 election. This proposition would require labeling on all GMO foods in the state of California. The website is http://www.LabelGMOs.org and there’s a Facebook page as well, Label GMOs.

Why avoid GMO foods and why do we want them labeled? Scientists warn that GMO foods may set off allergies, increase cancer risks, produce antibiotic-resistant pathogens, damage our food quality and produce dangerous toxins in our environment. GMO fed animals had higher death rates and organ damage in scientific studies.

GMOs will increase the risk of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria due to the use of antibiotic resistant genes in GM food. The British Medical Association cited this as one reason why they called for a global moratorium or ban on GM foods.

GMO crops cross-pollinate: Canadian organic farmers can no longer grow canola and soybean crops organically. The seed stocks of those two crops are now totally contaminated by GMOs, which cross-pollinate into other market garden crops from the brassica family, such as kale, cabbage and broccoli.   The recent deregulation of GMO alfalfa is particularly concerning as Alfalfa is a high cross pollinator, which means it can cross pollinate – and contaminate – many other plants.

It will be a few months before we can volunteer to gather signatures but there are many ways to get involved now.  If you would like to be part of the Label GMO campaign you can visit the website, spread the word, volunteer to gather signature in the fall and/or donate.  You will be coming together with other parents, farmers, doctors, scientists and food activists who are demanding our right to know what’s in our food.

This is an exciting time.

It’s time to for us to join together and legislate labeling of all GMO food.

We have a right to know!

Read more, great Monday Mania posts here: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/2011/07/monday-mania-7252011/

Read more great, Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2011/07/real-food-wednesday-7272011.html

Read more, great Simple Lives Thursday posts here: http://gnowfglins.com/2011/07/28/simple-lives-thursday-54/

Read more, great Pennywise Platter Thursday posts here: http://www.thenourishinggourmet.com/2011/07/pennywise-platter-thursday-728.html

Read more, great Fight Back Friday posts here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-july-29th/