Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

prepared by The CornerHouse, UK

It is often claimed that genetically engineered crops are the only way to

feed a growing world population. Yet close analysis suggests that there are

at least 10 good reasons why the widespread adoption of genetic engineering

in agriculture will lead to more hungry people – not fewer.

1. Feed, Not Food

2. Engineering for Convenience

3. Substituting Tropical Cash Crops

4. Increasing Farm Debt

5. Promoting Inefficient Farming

6. Increasing Destitution

7. Unsustainable Agriculture

8. Lower Yields

9. Increased Corporate Control

10. Misreading the Problem

1. Feed, Not Food

The two main GE crops grown commercially in the United States – soybeans

and maize (corn) – are used to feed livestock, not people.

This may be good for GE companies and their partners in the grain trade,

but it will do little to relieve world hunger. Indeed, livestock production

in many Southern countries has often been at the direct expense of poorer

people’s diets.

Egypt, for instance, encouraged by USAID, invested heavily in livestock

from the 1970s onwards. The country now grows more food for animals than

for humans. Human supplies of grain have been made up through US imports

which contributes to Egypt’s external debt. The consistent beneficiaries

have been large US grain merchants which have exported US grains at hugely

subsidised prices to Egypt.

2. Engineering for Convenience

Much genetic engineering research in food has been directed at meeting the

commercial needs of food processors rather than the nutritional needs of

poorer consumers.

A report by the US Biotechnology Industry Organization suggests that more

biotech effort will be devoted to genetic techniques for delaying ripening

or rotting of fruits and vegetables and for improving their appearance so

that they can be transported over ever longer distances and kept on

supermarket shelves for longer.

Maintaining a system whereby food has to travel such long distances may be

good news for oil companies, airlines and motor manufacturers, but it is an

energy- and resource-intensive system which contributes little to the

nutritional health of hungry people in either South or North – and does

much to undermine it.

3. Substituting Tropical Cash Crops

Using genetic engineering to create substitutes for tropical cash crops

will destroy the livelihoods of the rural poor in many Third World

countries – aggravating poverty and hunger.

Several applications of biotechnology are aimed at growing tropical cash

crops in the North, or at producing in laboratories the substances

currently derived from such crops.

Canola, for example, has been genetically-engineered to produce oils which

would replace coconut and palm oils. Coconut oil provides seven per cent of

the total export income of the Philippines, the world’s largest exporter of

coconut oil, and direct or indirect employment for 21 million people, about

30 per cent of the country’s population. Other tropical crops at risk

include vanilla and cocoa.

Although some of these cash crop producers will be able to switch to

growing other crops, many will not. With their income from export earnings

slashed, few Southern countries will be in a position to compensate such

workers and farmers. They will be left to fend for themselves: many are

likely to become malnourished for lack of cash to buy food.

4. Increasing Farm Debt

Unlike many of the seeds currently grown by Third World farmers, GE crops

do not come free. Attempts through legislation and genetic engineering

techniques to sterilize seeds, and to deny farmers’ their ancient right to

save and exchange seeds from previous harvests will force them to buy their

seeds every year. In addition, farmers will also need to buy chemical

herbicides and fertilizers; without theses the GE seeds will fail to

achieve viable yields.

Many small farmers, who are already hard pressed by competition from

heavily-subsidised food imports from the US and by the removal of subsidies

on water and energy under structural adjustment programmes, will slide into

debt.

The result is likely to be yet another wave of farm bankruptcies, leading

to landlessness for poorer farmers and an increased concentration of land

as wealthier farmers and speculators buy up bankrupted farms.

By threatening the farm livelihoods of the very poor, GE crops can only

undermine the food security of small producers – hardly a policy for

“feeding the world”.

5. Promoting Inefficient Farming

Proponents of genetic engineering in agriculture argue that farm

bankruptcies are a regrettable but necessary price of greater efficiency in

agriculture.

In terms of output per unit of labour, small farms are less “efficient”

than large modernised ones. But in terms of gross output per unit of land,

smaller farms often outdo larger ones. In Thailand, holdings under one

hectare have been found to be almost twice as productive as holdings over

40 hectares.

Arguments for replacing “inefficient” small producers with “efficient”

large producers also fail to take account of the key role that small farms

(particularly household gardens invariably tended by women) play in

efficiently supplying informal household networks with food.

To displace such networks would almost certainly result in a dramatic fall

in the amount of unmarketed food available to poorer people.

6. Increasing Destitution

Many vulnerable smallholder producers displaced as a result of growing

genetically-engineered crops are likely to find themselves in a saturated

labour market. If they could get jobs, they would probably be low-paid,

insecure ones in the cities or on larger farms where workers are generally

paid piece rates.

In today’s global supermarket, food goes to those who have the money to buy

it. Only those who have the income to translate their biological needs into

“effective demand” get to eat. Those whose incomes are too low – who cannot

grow food for themselves – inevitably wind up malnourished.

The overall result of displacing “inefficient” small farmers is thus likely

to be increased famine and malnutrition – not a reduction in hunger as the

proponents of genetic engineering promise.

7. Unsustainable Agriculture

Genetic engineering in agriculture is likely to have adverse environmental

impacts which are in turn likely to undermine the ecological basis of food

production.

Genetically-engineered crops will stimulate the evolution of “superweeds”

and “superbugs” which will necessitate higher doses of chemicals and make

food supplies more vulnerable to pest damage.

The outcrossing of engineered traits to other plants also poses a major

threat to food production.

In addition, the adoption of genetically-engineered crops is likely to

reduce genetic diversity, resulting in fewer and fewer types of food crops;

the narrowing of the genetic base of food adds to the likelihood of pest

and disease epidemics.

Many of these problems stem from the fact that genetically-engineered crops

will be grown in industrial monocultures. Other forms of agriculture offer

far safer, proven andecologically-benign means of protecting crops against

pest damage.

8. Lower Yields

The genetically-engineered crops now being cultivated do not have

significantly increased yields. In some cases, yields are lower than those

for conventional varieties of the same crop.

In the first large-scale field trials in Puerto Rico in 1992 of Roundup

Ready plants, Monsanto scientists found statistically significant reduced

yields, averaging some 11.5 per cent, in three of seven trials.

Many of the first growers of Roundup Ready cotton in the Mississippi Delta

of the US complained in 1997 of low yields and poor quality, noting that

bolls dropped prematurely and were deformed. Over 50 growers filed

complaints with the newly-formed US Seed Arbitration Council; Monsanto has

since paid out substantial compensation.

Several analysts conclude that any further increases in crop yields in

modern food crops will almost certainly come from building on traditional

breeding methods – not from transgenics.

9. Increased Corporate Control

Mergers, takeovers, joint ventures and licensing agreements between plant

breeding companies, seed distributors, grain traders, chemical companies

and genetic engineering interests have resulted in some genetic engineering

companies gaining near-monopoly control over the growing and marketing of

some agricultural commodities.

Just ten multinationals (including Monsanto) have now cornered nearly 40%

of the world seed market. Monsanto itself estimates that half the US grain

industry is now using its genetically-engineered seed; it expects that by

the year 2000, all soybeans planted in the United States will be of its

Roundup Ready variety.

Seed companies may well take conventional varieties off the market or use

existing seed and patent legislation to restrict farmers growing such

varieties. The result could be a drastic reduction in farm biodiversity –

with a consequent increase in the vulnerability of crops to disease. Again,

hardly a way to ensure food supplies for the future.

10. Misreading the Problem

Underlying the biotech industry’s claim that GE foods are needed to feed

the world lies a fundamentally flawed analysis of the causes of world

hunger.

More food will undoubtedly have to be grown in future if the increasing

numbers of people in the world are to be adequately fed.

But the claim that GE crops have a positive contribution to make is only

plausible if one mistakenly assumes that the hungry must be hungry because

there is not enough food. In fact, more than enough food is already being

produced to provide the world with a nutritious and adequate diet –

according to the United Nations’ World Food Programme, one-and-a-half times

the amount required.

If one in seven people currently go to bed hungry, it is not because of an

absolute shortage of food, but because inequalities in political and

economic power deny food to people. As long as access to food depends upon

money, and as long as poorer people are excluded from food markets or from

land, significant numbers of people will be malnourished, hungry and

starving – whatever happens to the global food supply, and whatever happens

to the number of people in the world

Far from addressing these underlying structural causes of hunger, genetic

engineering will do much to exacerbate them. Ensuring food security

worldwide requires an approach to agriculturethat is, in almost every

respect, the reverse of that being promoted bybiotech companies and their

allies in government and regulatory authorities.

—————————————————————–

“Ten Reasons” is extracted from “Food? Health? Hope? Genetic Engineering

and World Hunger”, a 28-page briefing prepared by The Corner House, PO Box

3137, Station Road, Sturminster Newton, Dorset DT10 1YJ, UK. Email

<cornerhouse@gn.apc.org> Email versions available free.

—————————————————————–

Sarah Sexton/Larry Lohmann/Nicholas Hildyard/Tracey Clunies Ross

THE CORNER HOUSE

PO Box 3137,

Station Road,

Sturminster Newton,

Dorset DT10 1YJ

BRITAIN

Tel: +44 (0)1258 473795

Fax: +44 (0)1258 473748

Email: <cornerhouse@gn.apc.org>

Website http://www.icaap.org/Cornerhouse

By Linn Cohen-Cole

The slew of fake “food safety” bill in congress threaten us all and our democracy.

Some don’t believe that, but they would probably be happy to make sure that certain things are FOR SURE not in those bills.

So, it’s a simple thing to start with what CANNOT be in those bills before adding anything to them, for adding to what is there would dangerously legitimize them and that must not, under any circumstances or in any way, happen.

You will see list below.  If you can think of more items that are important, that would be great because the point is to make the bills safe and have them actually make our food safe, and this is something that should have included us, but didn’t.

To begin:

First off, in legal and solid language, any bills must make clear only industrial facilities are included.

Then, the bills (all of them, and there are a slew) MUST EXPLICITLY exempt from these bills and all government control:

all private holding of seeds – individual, farmer, seed exchanges, seed banks, etc.

all small farms including all soil, all water, all crops and all animals on them,

all gardens,

all homes,

all farmers markets,

all CSAs,

all roadside stands,

all small producers of food,

all farm to consumer sales,

all consumer choice over food,

all farm equipment (harvesting, transporting, seed cleaning),

all natural things on farms (manure, agricultural water, wild animals, birds, earthworms),

all natural methods of farming.

And the bills MUST ASSERT AND GUARANTEE:

full and inviolate property rights of farmers,

protection from the government bankrupting farmers, ever, through penalties,

the erasure of all data on farmers put on the data bank,

and full due process in all aspects in all our laws, etc.

And the bills must begin the decentralization of our food supply as well as reintroduce local food processing.

The bills must prioritize every and all possible protection of small farming.

PROTECTIONS:

Must outlaw all raids on farmers.

Must specifically strip Homeland Security of surge capacity for search, seizure and destruction of crops, animals and equipment, and all war on terror regulations threatening small non-corporate farming, including the government taking over farms for any purpose, at any time, for any use.

Must outlaw stacking of penalties against farmers.

Must encourage (rather than restrict) farmers’ putting on their websites (or in other ways) any truthful information and independent studies about their food (the same being true for supplement companies using that same truthful information and independent studies) that is of relevance to consumers.

Must insert strong and multi-layered due process protections between farmers (and their crops, products and animals) and our government which must not be allowed to ever use “disease outbreak” and “contamination” as its means to destroy wipe out their animals or crops so as to insert genetically engineered animals and crops, as a means of even more strangling monopoly over food and reduction of farmers to mere leasers of animals and seeds.

Must provide labeling of all genetically engineered food.

Must provide, on food derived from industrial feedlots, CAFOs, and processing plants, clear labeling of pesticide levels, of antibiotic residue levels, of hormone residue levels, of drug residue levels, of heavy metal levels.

Must provide country of origin labeling that is explicit to each country, with no mixing of products.

Must provide strict prohibitions and large penalties against corporate employees holding any jobs within the USDA and FDA,

a serious conflict of interest.

Must outlaw any legislator who receives PAC money from agribusiness from ever introducing bills pertaining to agriculture, and ever being on any committees or subcommittees in relation to agriculture, or voting on any bills relating to agriculture – all a serious conflict of interest.

Must reject in advance any and all bills that in any way reduce our country’s control over its own health standards and instead increase international control over food here, vesting power in the WTO and reducing our standards and our own control.

This is an incomplete list.

These bills must begin the decentralization of our food supply for the safe of true food safety and also food security and the bills must increase the independence of our food supply by including strict rules and penalties in the bills pertaining to no governmental interference at any point in direct farm to consumer sales.

And the fundamental survival needs for everyone – based on the rights of our farmers to farm, the rights of our gardeners to garden, the rights of all citizens to choose whatever food they wish without government interference, and especially the rights of all of us to own seeds and have water sources – must be GUARANTEED in these bills as basic human rights, as basic to our democracy, and as basic to life, itself.

This list takes the “I didn’t see that there” confusion out of an astoundingly vague and broad bill and begins to make it highly specific, and today, not a year from now, so the public can know what is involved and how it will affect them.

This list begins to lay out what “food safety” actually consists of.  Once that is done, then it will be easy to see which legislators are truly interested in “food safety.”

Take action — click below to contact your local newspaper or congress people:

Withdraw HR 875 immediately as well as SR425, HR 814, and related bills. They will destroy our small farmers, take control of seed, and trap us into GMOs and an industrial system just as we are turning a corner toward local, organic, sustainable sanity..

http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/oen.cgi?qnum=7478

Now, here are people you can thank for fighting these bills.  Here is a link to an R-CALF video which is well worth your time.

Editor’s Note: The second video below is what the author has recommended. It is a 5-min. segment from an entire film on the subject.  The first video is the introductory segment of that video (also 5 mins.), which OEN readers may find useful and informative. Click here for more videos by R-Calf.

http://www.youtube.com/user/laurelrcalf

These are people the left needs to meet – conservative, independent (non-corporate) cattlemen who believe in “fair trade” and real competition, and fought and miraculously stopped the JBS Swift merger (threatening control of 90% of beef in the world, vertically integrated).  And for a long time, single-handedly, they have held off NAIS (the dangerous core to the power in these bills and the beginning of chipping all animals and eventually, through Smart Grid, tracking everyone).

They are American heroes.  In an economy that has been shipped overseas, they have fought for local and American industry here.

They need us to all show up now.

And isn’t it way past time we realize these are not right or left issues we’re fighting but the destruction of our constitution since the Patriot Act went into effect?

Were it not for R-CALF, an organization most people have never heard of, NAIS would have sailed through by now and along with it, many other controls over food, land and seed.

Here is a link to let Congress and your local paper know how you feel about all this.

http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/oen.cgi?qnum=7478

And for those of you who feel the inclination to be part of this fight, reach R-CALF and feel what it’s like to stand with American cowboys against Simon Legree who’s back in with a pack of lawyers, twirling big slick mustaches, with a gleam in their eye to steal our ranches, our farms and everything else.  Offer to help out.  Offer to use lists you have access to.  Offer to post their video every place you can with a message from you about why this matters to us all.

Make this is the moment when right and left become friends and take on the bad guys together.

Author’s Bio: Met libertarian and conservative farmers and learned an incredible amount about farming and nature and science, as well as about government violations against them and against us all. The other side of the fence is nothing like what we’ve been taught to assume but great people with immense decency.

This was good news to read, and it’s a start. Now lets get labeling on our food too!

White House backs healthier eating

By Andrew Martin

NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

2:00 a.m. March 22, 2009

ANAHEIM – As tens of thousands of people recently strolled among booths of the nation’s largest organic and natural foods show here, munching on fair-trade chocolate and sipping organic wine, a few dozen pioneers of the industry sneaked off to an out-of-the-way conference room.

Although unit sales of organic food have leveled off and even declined lately, versus a year earlier, the mood among those crowded into the conference room was upbeat as they awaited a private screening of a documentary called “Food Inc.” – a withering critique of agribusiness and industrially produced food.

They also gathered to relish their changing political fortunes, courtesy of the Obama administration.

“This has never been just about business,” said Gary Hirshberg, chief executive of Stonyfield Farm, the maker of organic yogurt. “We are here to change the world. We dreamt for decades of having this moment.”

After being largely ignored for years by Washington, advocates of organic and locally grown food have found a receptive ear in the White House, which has vowed to encourage a more nutritious and sustainable food supply.

The most vocal booster so far has been the first lady, Michelle Obama, who has emphasized the need for fresh, unprocessed, locally grown food and, last week, started work on a White House vegetable garden. More surprising, perhaps, are the pronouncements out of the Department of Agriculture, an agency with long and close ties to agribusiness.

In mid-February, Tom Vilsack, the new secretary of agriculture, took a jackhammer to a patch of pavement outside his headquarters to create his own organic “people’s garden.” Two weeks later, the Obama administration named Kathleen Merrigan, an assistant professor at Tufts University and a longtime champion of sustainable agriculture and healthy food, as Vilsack’s top deputy.

Hirshberg and other sustainable-food activists are hoping that such actions are precursors to major changes in the way the federal government oversees the nation’s food supply and farms, changes that could significantly bolster demand for fresh, local and organic products. Already, they have offered plenty of ambitious ideas.

For instance, celebrity chef Alice Waters recommends that the federal government triple its budget for school lunches to provide youngsters with healthier food. Author Michael Pollan has called on President Barack Obama to pursue a “reform of the entire food system” by focusing on a Pollan priority: diversified, regional food networks.

Still, some activists worry that their dreams of a less-processed American diet may soon collide with the realities of Washington and the financial gloom over much of the country. Even the Bush administration, reviled by many food activists, came to Washington intent on reforming farm subsidies, only to be slapped down by Congress.

Even so, many activists say they are packing their bags and heading to Washington. They are bringing along a copy of “Food Inc.,” which includes attacks on the corn lobby and Monsanto, and intend to provide a private screening for Vilsack and Merrigan.

At the heart of the sustainable-food movement is a belief that America has become efficient at producing cheap, abundant food that profits corporations and agribusiness, but is unhealthy and bad for the environment.

The federal government is culpable, the activists say, because it pays farmers billions in subsidies each year for growing grains and soybeans. A result is an abundance of corn and soybeans that provide cheap feed for livestock and inexpensive food ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup.

But advocates of conventional agriculture argue that organic farming can’t provide enough food because the yields tend to be lower than those for crops grown with chemical fertilizer.

“We think there’s a place for organic, but don’t think we can feed ourselves and the world with organic,” says Rick Tolman, chief executive of the National Corn Growers Association. “It’s not as productive, more labor-intensive and tends to be more expensive.”

The ideas are hardly new. Farmland philosopher and author Wendell Berry has been making many of the same points for decades. What is new is that the sustainable-food movement has gained both commercial heft, with the success of organic and natural foods in the past decade, and celebrity cachet, with a growing cast of chefs, authors and celebrities who champion the cause.

It has also been aided by more awareness of the obesity epidemic, particularly among children, and by concerns about food safety amid seemingly continual outbreaks of tainted supplies.

While their arguments haven’t gained much traction in Washington, sustainable-food activists and entrepreneurs have persuaded more Americans to watch what they eat.

They have encouraged the growth of farmers markets and created such a demand for organic, natural and local products that they are now sold at many major grocers, including Wal-Mart.

“Increasingly, companies are looking to reduce the amount of additives,” says Ted Smyth, who retired this year as senior vice president at H.J. Heinz, the food giant. “Consumers are looking for more authentic foods. This trend absolutely has percolated through into mainstream foods.”

The sustainable-food movement also owes much of its current success to pioneers in the organic and natural foods industry. Many started their businesses for idealistic reasons and have since turned their startups into major corporations.

Manufacturers improved their organic and natural products so they could compete with conventional foods on packaging and taste. Whole Foods Market also lured more mainstream customers by creating lush displays of produce and fish that have influenced more traditional grocers.

Nancy Childs, a professor of food marketing at St. Joseph’s University, said sustainable food activists forced the public to focus on the quality and sourcing of food. She says that “continual attention in the news” also gave the movement legs.

But Childs worries that some of the activists’ recommendations for buying fresh, local or organic food cannot be adopted by many Americans because those foods may be too expensive. “By singling out certain lifestyles and foods, it’s diminishing very good quality nutrition sources,” she says. “Frozen goods, canned goods, they are not bad things. What’s important is that people eat well, within their means.”

“We’d all love to live on a farm in Vermont, right?” she adds.

Find this article at:

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/mar/22/1b22food224234-outlook-upbeat-food-activists/?uniontrib

© Copyright 2009 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. • A Copley Newspaper Site

We saw the corporation last weekend, for the second time, and it’s such an amazing movie and a must see movie!  You can buy it from www.thecorporation.com  or Netflix carries it and there are clips on YouTube.

I really knew much less then I thought I did about corporations, how they came into being and why they’re not ideal –  to say the least! –  for social responsibility.  It’s a long movie and the first 15 minutes is a bit chaotic – make sure you watch past it – because once the intro is over it gets into the issue in a very understandable and entertaining way.  The film has many wonderful cameos including Howard Zinn, Michael Moore and Vandana Shiva, who we wrote about a few blog posts ago. It’s highly recommended and even our teenager watched this one with us.

There’s also a very informative section about Monsanto and gmo food.

Here’s the info from their site:

WINNER OF 26 INTERNATIONAL AWARDS! 10 Audience Choice Awards including the 2004 Sundance Film Festival.

Provoking, witty, stylish and sweepingly informative, THE CORPORATION explores the nature and spectacular rise of the dominant institution of our time. Part film and part movement, The Corporation is transforming audiences and dazzling critics with its insightful and compelling analysis. Taking its status as a legal “person” to the logical conclusion, the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist’s couch to ask “What kind of person is it?” The Corporation includes interviews with 40 corporate insiders and critics – including Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Milton Friedman, Howard Zinn, Vandana Shiva and Michael Moore – plus true confessions, case studies and strategies for change.

“AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF OUTSTANDING EXTRAS, there is basically another 6-hour (!) documentary included.” MovieFreak

Along with the groundbreaking 145-minute theatrical version of the film, the two-disc DVD has eight hours of never-before-seen footage. In addition to two commentary tracks, deleted scenes, and Q’s-and-A’s, 165 new clips and updates are sorted “by person” and “by topic.” Get the details you want to know on the issues you care about. Then, check out the web links for follow-up research and action.

THE CORPORATION is Canada’s most successful documentary… EVER!

The film is based on the book The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power by Joel Bakan.

Here’s their site: http://www.thecorporation.com

Advocates Call for Immediate Ban of All GM Foods and GM Crops

(Los Angeles, CA.) – A long-term feeding study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, managed by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth, and carried out by Veterinary University Vienna, confirms genetically modified (GM) corn seriously affects reproductive health in mice. Non-GMO advocates, who have warned about this infertility link along with other health risks, now seek an immediate ban of all GM foods and GM crops to protect the health of humankind and the fertility of women around the world.

Feeding mice with genetically modified corn developed by the US-based Monsanto Corporation led to lower fertility and body weight, according to the study conducted by the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna. Lead author of the study Professor Zentek said, 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), or 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 corn is genetically modified with genes that produce a pesticidal toxin, as well as genes that allow it to survive applications of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup.

A book by author Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette, distributed to members of congress last year, documents 65 serious health risks of GM products, including similar fertility problems with GM soy and GM corn: Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce. Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells. The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning. Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties. Additionally, over the last two months, investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products.

The principle GM crops are soy, corn, cottonseed and canola. GM sugar from sugar beets will also be introduced before year’s end.

Mr. Smith, who is also the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology says, “GM foods are likely responsible for several negative health trends in the US. The government must impose an immediate ban on these dangerous crops.” He says, “Consumers don’t need to wait for governmental action. They can download a free Non-GMO Shopping Guide at www.HealthierEating.org.”

Monsanto press offices in the UK and USA were unable to provide a comment on the findings for journalists yesterday.

The Institute for Responsible Technology’s Campaign for Healthier Eating in America mobilizes citizens, organizations, businesses, and the media, to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of genetically modified foods.

The Institute educates people about the documented health risks of GMOs and provides them with healthier non-GMO product choices.

The Institute also informs policy makers and the public around the world about the impacts of GMOs on health, environment, the economy, and agriculture, and the problems associated with current research, regulation, corporate practices, and reporting.

###

Institute For Responsible Technology

Media Contact: NJ Jaeger

Expert Contact: Jeffrey M. Smith

Email: njmail@cox.net

Phone: +1-310-377-0915

Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety

Corporate Communication: Univ.-Doz. Ingrid Kiefer

Tel: +43 50 555-25000; E-Mail: ingrid.kiefer@ages.at

Links

Austrian Study: http://www.ages.at/ueber-uns/presse/pressemeldungen/klarstellung-zu-neuen-er

Institute for Responsible Technology: http://responsibletechnology.org

Non-GMO Shopping Guide: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/DocumentFiles/144.pdf

Genetic Roulette: http://www.geneticroulette.com

Children face the greatest risk from the potential dangers of GM foods:

* 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

Young, fast-developing bodies are influenced most

Children’s bodies develop at a fast pace and are more likely to be influenced and show the effects of genetically modified (GM) foods. That is why independent scientists used young adolescent rats in their GM feeding studies. The rats showed significant health damage after only 10 days, including damaged immune systems and digestive function, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, and potentially pre-cancerous cell growth in the intestines.

Children are more susceptible to allergies

Children are three to four times more prone to allergies than adults. Infants below two years old are at greatest risk-they have the highest incidence of reactions, especially to new allergens encountered in the diet. Even tiny amounts of allergens can sometimes cause reactions in children. Breast fed infants can be exposed via the mother’s diet, and fetuses may possibly be exposed in the womb. Michael Meacher, the former minister of the environment for the UK, said, “Any baby food containing GM products could lead to a dramatic rise in allergies.” GM corn is particularly problematic for children, as they generally eat a higher percentage of corn in their diet. Further, allergic children often rely on corn protein. Mothers using cornstarch as a talc substitute on their children’s skin might also inadvertently expose them via inhalation.

Children are more susceptible to problems with milk

Milk and dairy products from cows treated with the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH) contain an increased amount of the hormone IGF-1, which is one of the highest risk factors associated with breast and prostate cancer. The Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association called for more studies to determine if ingesting “higher than normal concentrations of [IGF-1] is safe for children, adolescents, and adults.” Sam Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and author of eight books, wrote, “rbGH and its digested products could be absorbed from milk into blood, particularly in infants, and produce hormonal and allergic effects.” He described how “cell-stimulating growth factors . . . could induce premature growth and breast stimulation in infants, and possibly promote breast cancer in adults.” Dr. Epstein pointed out that the hormones in cows could promote the production of “steroids and adrenaline-type stressor chemicals . . . likely to contaminate milk and may be harmful, particularly to infants and young children.”

Children are more susceptible to nutritional problems

A 2002 report by the UK’s Royal Society, said that genetic modification “could lead to unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional state of foods.” They therefore recommended that potential health effects of GM foods be rigorously researched before being fed to pregnant or breast-feeding women, elderly people, those suffering from chronic disease, and babies. Likewise, according to former minister Meacher, unexpected changes in estrogen levels in GM soy used in infant formula “might affect sexual development in children,” and that “even small nutritional changes could cause bowel obstruction.”

Children are in danger from antibiotic resistant diseases

Children prone to ear and other infections are at risk of facing 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 moratorium of GM foods.

Reprinted with permission from the Institue for Responsible Technology, http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/AboutGMFoods/HigherRisksforChildren/index.cfm

See more wonderful Fight Back Friday ideas at the Food Renegade Blog, http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-fridays-5/

“Over the past three decades I have tried to be change I want to see.”

I was privileged to hear Dr. Shiva speak this weekend in Anaheim, CA.  The topic of her talk was Soil Not Oil: Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis.

Vandana Shiva was a Physicist in India and left the world of science, she says, “When I found that dominant science and technology served the interests of powerful, I left academics to found the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, a participatory, public interest research organization.

When I found global corporations wanted to patent seeds, crops or life forms, I started Navdanya to protect biodiversity, defend farmers’ rights and promote organic farming.

Navdanya/RFSTE’s journey over the past two decades has taken us into creating markets for farmers and promoting tasty, healthy, high quality food for consumers. We have connected the seed to the kitchen, biodiversity to gastronomy. And now we have joined hands with Slow Food to celebrate the quality and cultural diversity of our food.”

She spoke about ‘a century of error’ in food technology.  When the Indian farmers were encouraged to grow Bt cotton (a genetically modified cotton) their seed price went from 7 rupees to 7,000 rupees for them to buy seed. And the GE seed is made to be infertile so the farmers couldn’t save their seed to grow the next year.  They got so in debt that 84% of the cotton farmers that were using the GE seed, committed suicide.  Dr. Shiva calls this Bio-Piracy; The stealing by a large multi-national corporation [{Monsanto] of our food and seed supply.

It’s time for all of us to stand up and say, no, we won’t stand for this.

Instead of changing and then patenting (and owning!) our seeds, we need to get back to basics; organic and sustainable farming. Which can feed the world and will help climate change as well. In research that was done, biodiverse organic farms had the greatest food yield of any kind of farming.  It can feed the world and is good for the environment as well.  The number two issue of climate change is the factory farms of the world. Our government has been exacerbating this issue with subsidies (with our tax dollars!) to GE and factory farmers.  We need to focus on many small, organic farmers so people can eat local and healthy food.

She said, “A healthy environment and a just world go hand-in-hand. In a time of changing climates and increasing food scarcity, sustainable and biologically diverse farms are the champions for food production that is resistant to disease, drought, and flood. By promoting the productivity of small independent farms we can increase the potential for social justice and biodiversity”

And she ended her wonderful and inspirational talk, with a reminder to also cultivate peace, happiness and joy.

You can visit her website here:

http://www.navdanya.org

Vandana Shiva is a world-renowned environmental leader and thinker. Director of the Research Foundation on Science, Technology, and Ecology, she is the author of many books, including Water Wars: Pollution, Profits, and Privatization (South End Press, 2001), Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge (South End Press, 1997), Monocultures of the Mind (Zed, 1993), The Violence of the Green Revolution (Zed, 1992)

Ms. Shiva is a leader in the International Forum on Globalization and founder of Navdanya (“nine seeds”), a movement promoting diversity and use of native seeds. In 1993, Shiva won the Alternative Nobel Peace Prize (the Right Livelihood Award). Before becoming an activist, Shiva was one of India ’s leading physicists. She holds a master’s degree in the philosophy of science and a Ph.D. in particle physics.

H.R. 875 – Tell your Representatives to vote NO

The real deal that changes the face of the American Farmer is

H.R. 875. I spent all day finding the fax numbers of each and every congressman and woman, including Nancy Pelosi that were on the Committees hearing this bill. It is titled, “[111th] Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)”. If you go to Sec 210 – Traceback Requirements, paragraph d, sub-paragraph 2, sub-paragraph D, you will find DIRECT reference to implementation of NAIS! Shoot, I’m just gonna copy and  paste it for you here:

SEC. 210. TRACEBACK REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General- The Administrator, in order to protect the public health, shall establish a national traceability system that enables the Administrator to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article of food through all stages of its production, processing, and distribution.

(b) Applicability- Traceability requirements under this section shall apply to food from food production facilities, food establishments, and foreign food establishments.

(c) Requirements-

(1) STANDARDS- The Administrator shall establish standards for the type of information, format, and timeframe for food production facilities and food establishments to submit records to aid the Administrator in effectively retrieving the history, use, and location of an item of food.

(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Administrator to prescribe a specific technology for the maintenance of records or labeling of food to carry out the requirements of this section.

(3) AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS FOR INSPECTION- Any records that are required by the Administrator under this section shall be available for inspection by the Administrator upon oral or written request.

(4) DEMONSTRATION OF ABILITY- The Administrator, during any inspection, may require a food establishment to demonstrate its ability to trace an item of food and submit the information in the format and timeframe required under paragraph (1).

(d) Relationship to Other Requirements-

(1) CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING STATUTES AND REGULATIONS- To the extent possible, the Administrator should establish the national traceability system under this section to be consistent with existing statutes and regulations that require record-keeping or labeling for identifying the origin or history of food or food animals.

(2) EXISTING LAWS- For purposes of this subsection, the Administrator should review the following:

(A) Country of origin labeling requirements of subtitle D of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638 et seq.).

(B) The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499a-t).

(C) Country of origin labeling requirements of section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1340).

(D) The National Animal Identification System as authorized by the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.).

(3) CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS- Nothing contained in this sectn prevents or interferes with implementation of the country of origin labeling requirements of subtitle D of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638 et seq.).

Here is the letter that I copied from earlier post with my changes:

(This is the letter I have sent to the Committees on Energy & Commerce and Agriculture as well as each individual on each of these committees and subcommittees. Please read and be aware of this bill or its incarnations as this will affect every small holding in your district and the country as a whole. This is a very scary proposition and if you have ever watched the movie “Soylent Green” realize that small farmers have watched it too.

“He who controls the food supply, controls the world”. ~Carol Peters

H.R. 875 is about making a mandatory

National Animal Identification System(NAIS) (see Sec210(d)(2)(D).

Wiping out America’s healthy food growers at a time when the nation is already about to buckle under economic distress, will only put the final nails in our coffins and this country will look like a 3rd world country in no time at all. I have a small family farm. We grow our own crops and raise our own livestock on 5 acres.

We sell our surplus to offset the costs of living off the land. Our goal is to retire on up to 200 acres of farmland.

Regulation in a Mandatory NAIS Program will destroy our way of life and our dreams of peaceful retirement farming!

Provisions need to be addressed for the small holding farmer!

NAIS is designed to eliminate private animal ownership and industrialize the global food supply. It states it is going to stop disease, but it doesn’t. Its only function is to eliminate the private animal owners from the food supply, thus industrializing agriculture and the entire global food supply. This happens as a direct result of all the required NAIS expenses, required paperwork, loss of property rights and privacy, and outrageous non-compliance fines.

All I can ask…beg of you, is to work diligently against NAIS and H.R.

875 Sec 210(d)(2)(D), as it will completely wipe out the American farmers. All that will be left is the big disgusting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that feed tons of antibiotics, hormones, and chemicals just to keep the million+animals alive in those “cess-pool farms”. That is the face of Industrialize

Agriculture-CAFOs. NAIS will lead to nothing but CAFOs for our food supply.

NAIS is worse than any disease it hypes about preventing. NAIS is what  farmers have to worry about in destroying all their animals, not any diseases.

NAIS itself will be the most deadly thing in America’s farms, if it gets passed.

Please vote against H.R. 875 today!

p.s.

Could one of the congressmen or women please give a copy of this letter to the Chairman of Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Congressman Markey, because his is the only D.C. office that refuses to give out his fax.

Thank you.

Carol

By Linn Cohen-Cole

People say if farmers don’t want problems from Monsanto, just don’t buy their GMO seeds.

Not so simple.  Where are farmers supposed to get normal seed these days?  How are they supposed to avoid contamination of their fields from GM-crops?  How are they supposed to stop Monsanto detectives from trespassing or Monsanto from using helicopters to fly over spying on them?

Monsanto contaminates the fields, trespasses onto the land taking samples and if they find any GMO plants growing there (or say they have), they then sue, saying they own the crop.  It’s a way to make money since farmers can’t fight back and court and they settle because they have no choice.

And they have done and are doing a bucket load of things to keep farmers and everyone else from having any access at all to buying, collecting, and saving of NORMAL seeds.

1.  They’ve bought up the seed companies across the midwest.

2.  They’ve written Monsanto seed laws and gotten legislators to put them through, that make cleaning, collecting and storing of seeds so onerous in terms of fees and paperwork and testing and tracking every variety and being subject to fines, that having normal seed becomes almost impossible (an NAIS approach to wiping out normal seeds).  Does your state have such a seed law?  Before they existed, farmers just collected the seeds and put them in sacks in the shed and used them the next year, sharing whatever they wished with friends and neighbors, selling some if they wanted.  That’s been killed.

In Illinois which has such a seed law, Madigan, the Speaker of the House, his staff is Monsanto lobbyists.

3.  Monsanto is pushing anti-democracy laws (Vilsack’s brainchild, actually) that remove community’ control over their own counties so farmers and citizens can’t block the planting of GMO crops even if they can contaminate other crops.  So if you don’t want a GM-crop that grows industrial chemicals or drugs or a rice growing with human DNA in it, in your area and mixing with your crops, tough luck.

Check the map of just where the Monsanto/Vilsack laws are and see if your state is still a democracy or is Monsanto’s.  A farmer in Illinois told me he heard that Bush had pushed through some regulation that made this true in every state.  People need to check on that.

4.  For sure there are Monsanto regulations buried in the FDA right now that make a farmer’s seed cleaning equipment illegal (another way to leave nothing but GM-seeds) because it’s now considered a “source of seed contamination.”  Farmer can still seed clean but the equipment now has to be certified and a farmer said it would require a million to a million and half dollar building and equipment … for EACH line of seed.  Seed storage facilities are also listed (another million?) and harvesting and transport equipment.  And manure.  Something that can contaminate seed.  Notice that chemical fertilizers and pesticides are not mentioned.

You could eat manure and be okay (a little grossed out but okay).  Try that with pesticides and fertilizers.  Indian farmers have.  Their top choice for how to commit suicide to escape the debt they have been left in is to drink Monsanto pesticides.

5.  Monsanto is picking off seed cleaners across the Midwest.  In Pilot Grove, Missouri , in Indiana (Maurice Parr ), and now in southern Illinois (Steve Hixon).  And they are using US marshals and state troopers and county police to show up in three cars to serve the poor farmers who had used Hixon as their seed cleaner, telling them that he or their neighbors turned them in, so across that 6 county areas, no one talking to neighbors and people are living in fear and those farming communities are falling apart from the suspicion Monsanto sowed.  Hixon’s office got broken into and he thinks someone put a GPS tracking device on his equipment and that’s how Monsanto found between 200-400 customers in very scattered and remote areas, and threatened them all and destroyed his business within 2 days.

So, after demanding that seed cleaners somehow be able to tell one seed from another (or be sued to kingdom come) or corrupting legislatures to put in laws about labeling of seeds that are so onerous no one can cope with them, what is Monsanto’s attitude about labeling their own stuff?  You guessed it – they’re out there pushing laws against ANY labeling of their own GM-food and animals  and of any exports to other countries.  Why?

We know and they know why.

As Norman Braksick, the president of Asgrow Seed Co. (now owned by Monsanto) predicted in the Kansas City Star (3/7/94) seven years ago, “If you put a label on a genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.”

And they’ve sued dairy farmers for telling the truth about their milk being rBGH-free, though rBGH is associated with an increased risk of breast, colon and prostate cancers.

I just heard that some seed dealers urge farmers to buy the seed under the seed dealer’s name, telling the farmers it helps the dealer get a discount on seed to buy a lot under their own name.  Then Monsanto sues the poor farmer for buying their seed without a contract and extorts huge sums from them.

Here’s a youtube video that is worth your time.  Vandana Shiva is one of the leading anti-Monsanto people in the world.  In this video, she says (and this video is old), Monsanto had sued 1500 farmers whose fields had simply been contaminated by GM-crops.  Listen to all the ways Monsanto goes after farmers.

Do you know the story of Gandhi in India and how the British had salt laws that taxed salt?  The British claimed it as theirs.  Gandhi had what was called a Salt Satyagraha, in which people were asked to break the laws and march to the sea  and collect the salt without paying the British.  A kind of Boston tea party, I guess.

Thousands of people marched 240 miles to the ocean where the British were waiting.  As people moved forward to collect the salt, the British soldiers clubbed them but the people kept coming.  The non-violent protest exposed the British behavior which was so revolting to the world that it helped end British control in India.

Vandana Shiva has started a Seed Satyagraha – nonviolent non-cooperation around seed laws – has gotten millions of farmers to sign a pledge to break those laws.

American farmers and cattlemen might appreciate what Gandhi fought for and what Shiva is bringing back and how much it is about what we are all so angry about – loss of basic freedoms.  [The highlighting is mine.]

The Seed Satyagraha is the name for the nonviolent, noncooperative movement that Dr. Shiva has organized to stand against seed monopolies. According to Dr. Shiva, the name was inspired by Gandhi’s famous walk to the Dandi Beach, where he picked up salt and said, “You can’t monopolize this which we need for life.” But it’s not just the noncooperation aspect of the movement that is influenced by Gandhi. The creative side saving seeds, trading seeds, farming without corporate dependence-–without their chemicals, without their seed.

“All this is talked about in the language that Gandhi left us as a legacy. We work with three key concepts.”

“(One) Swadeshi…which means the capacity to do your own thing–produce your own food, produce your own goods….”

“(Two) Swaraj–to govern yourself. And we fight on three fronts-–water, food, and seed. JalSwaraj is water independence–water freedom and water sovereignty. Anna Swaraj is food freedom, food sovereignty. And Bija Swaraj is seed freedom and seed sovereignty. Swa means self–that which rises from the self and is very, very much a deep notion of freedom.

“I believe that these concepts, which are deep, deep, deep in Indian civilization, Gandhi resurrected them to fight for freedom. They are very important for today’s world because so far what we’ve had is centralized state rule, giving way now to centralized corporate control, and we need a third alternate. That third alternate is, in part, citizens being able to tell their state, ‘This is what your function is. This is what your obligations are,’ and being able to have their states act on corporations to say, ‘This is something you cannot do.'”

“(Three) Satyagraha, non-cooperation, basically saying, ‘We will do our thing and any law that tries to say that (our freedom) is illegal… we will have to not cooperate with it. We will defend our freedoms to have access to water, access to seed, access to food, access to medicine.'”

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-multiple-ways-Monsanto-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090203-854.html

Reprinted with permission of the author.  Author’s Bio: I’m a mother and grandmother. There is no way I can leave my family or anyone else’s children, things as they are now.

* “What Monsanto is Trying to Do is Control the Food Chain”

      Interview with journalist Marie-Monique Robin

      By Elsa Chanduvi Jana

      Latin America Press, February 6, 2009

      Straight to the Source

French journalist and filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin, author of the book and documentary The World According to Monsanto, an exhaustive investigation into genetically-modified organisms and Monsanto, the world’s largest transgenic seed producer, spoke with Latin America Press managing editor Elsa Chanduví Jaña about the effects of these seeds and Monsanto’s ambitions to “control the world’s food chain.”

Robin participated in the seminar “Seeds of Diversity vs. Transgenics” in Lima Jan. 28-29, which Comunicaciones Aliadas and Latin America Press co-organized.

*How would you describe Monsanto´s world vision?

What Monsanto wants to do is control the food chain with patented transgenic seeds. It’s a totalitarian project because to control food is to control the world, it’s to control people. [Monsanto] is a multinational that has been using dirty practices for almost a century. Many of its products are prohibited today because they’re very toxic, such as PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls], for example, which used to be used in all countries as electric transformers. Monsanto hid the information it had. It lied saying that those PCBs were not dangerous, until it was finally discovered and after a lawsuit in the United States seven years ago it was ordered to pay US$700 million.

There are other examples, such as Agent Orange, that cocktail of herbicides used during the Vietnam War. In this case, Monsanto paid scientists to deny the relationship between exposure to Agent Orange, which contains dioxin, and cancer.

*What is Monsanto’s strategy to control the food chain?

Its strategy has many forms. One of the most important is called “revolving doors” in the United States. In the case of transgenics, the fundamental text, which is the basis for worldwide regulations on transgenics, was published in 1992 by the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA], and written by a former Monsanto lawyer who got on the FDA to write the text and later ended up as Monsanto´s vice president. Those are revolving doors. You come from an industry, you get an important position in a government agency, or even an international organization, you stay for a few years and then you go back to the industry. Incredible. They can put their people in key decision-making positions. In the FDA, or the EPA [the US Environmental Protection Agency], the top person was a lawyer for Monsanto.

The other strategy is paying. There are two proven corruption cases. One case in Indonesia: two or three years ago in the United States, Monsanto was found guilty of corruption for paying some 100 Indonesian government officials to introduce Bt cotton seeds. There was a corruption attempt that was also uncovered by a parliamentary commission in Canada in which Monsanto offered US$2 million to be able to put a growth hormone on the market.

If not, they pressure universities. In the United States, there is already an advanced privatization of the universities, so they pressure to fire scientists who have done studies or want to that Monsanto thinks are against its interests. The same thing happens with journalists.

*How did Monsanto enter the genetically-modified organisms business?

Monsanto has been the top seed company since 2005. But 10 years ago, it had no seeds; it had just invented transgenics. The first was Roundup Ready soy. Well, it had this invention without knowing what to do with it. First, it thought: “Let’s sell the license to seed companies.” But then it later thought, “No, it’s better to buy those seed companies.”

So it sold its pharmaceutical division that was very important and generated a lot of money, to finance this purchasing program. Little by little, in 10 years, it was able to purchase more than 50 seed companies around the world, which has made Monsanto the top seed company in the world, which is incredible because it was a big chemical and pharmaceutical company, but nothing to do with seeds.

It’s a very well thought out strategy because every time it buys a seed company, it puts in its patented transgenic seeds, and that means that farmers don’t have any other option. In India, it has purchased cotton seed companies, and farmers don’t have other options because there are only patented transgenic seeds. In the United States, there are a group of farmers that have collectively filed a lawsuit against Monsanto alleging that it violated anti-trust laws for buying so many seed companies. Monopolies in the United States are prohibited. Some people think that Monsanto could go through the same thing as Microsoft did years ago, which had a monopoly and had to sell off some of its companies because it had too much.

*What are the risks that transgenics pose?

On an environmental level, the risk that has been proved is that it causes a great loss of biodiversity because of contamination. This has been proved in Canada, where transgenic rapeseed had contaminated everything and caused non-transgenic rapeseed to disappear, both conventional and organic.

For human health, unfortunately there are very few studies that have been done on this because Monsanto was able to impose, thanks to the “revolving doors,” the so-called principle of substantial equivalence, which is the basis of all regulation on genetically-modified organisms in the world. The principle says that a transgenic is equivalent to one conventional plant and that’s why studies are not necessary. If it is equivalent, why bother?

That principle has no scientific basis and it is a decision of the White House to support the very rapid development of transgenics. That principle makes it so there are very few studies that truly verify what the consequences of transgenics on human health could be. The only well-done studies that have been done are by independent scientists. I interviewed two of them, who, when they discovered that there were problems with rats that had eaten transgenics, they were thrown out of their jobs. It’s always the same story.

But if there is no problem I don’t understand why a study is not conducted by an independent team, recognized on a global level, to do a two-year study, and that the figures can be published so that the whole world verify. They do everything possible to impede those studies, with very dirty methods, with defamation campaigns, tremendous pressure.

*Are you against the production of all transgenic crops, even in countries with little biodiversity? Why?

Yes, of course. With those transgenics, the only thing there is in the fields are plants with pesticides, manipulated plants, either to resist fumigations with a very toxic pesticides such as Roundup or manipulated to make corn that contains an insecticide. What good is that? I don´t want to give my daughters transgenic food. Why would I give them corn containing an insecticide or rapeseed oil fumigated with toxic herbicide? Now, let them continue making studies in closed, controlled laboratories, but not in open fields. I have nothing against scientific investigation, but it’s something else in our fields.

*What can be done to stop the advance of these transgenics?

There are many things to do, depending on the country. I know that here [in Peru] a law is being prepared to allow transgenics to enter the country, so the consumers in cities could at least ask for labeling on the products. That is very important for them to choose [what to buy]. Those [transgenic] products should be boycotted as much as possible and we should eat as much organic food as we can. It’s the only way.

—Latin America Press

You can watch the movie above, or on google video’s at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4343232132600238289