CSIRO 'dumps' anti-GM expert
William Birnbauer
The Age, May 27 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/csiro-dumps-antigm-expert/2007/05/26/1179601737365.html
ONE of Australia's leading specialists on biological farming says he was dumped by the CSIRO because of his criticism of genetically modified crops.
Dr Maarten Stapper, a principal research scientist, worked for CSIRO for 23 years and is an expert on soil health which, he says, is the key to better crops.
He told The Sunday Age that senior CSIRO management bullied and harassed him and tried to gag his criticisms of GM crops. He left in March after his position with CSIRO's plant industry division was made redundant.
"I could have continued working for the CSIRO but I would have to give up all my beliefs about good agriculture and keep my mouth shut about GM," he said. "I didn't want that because I have a connection with the farming community and they trust me."
Dr Stapper said experience as a farming systems agronomist had taught him that most problems started with the soil, and that was where the solutions were. "GM solutions won't solve our problems," he said.
CSIRO disputed several assertions made by Dr Stapper, who has become something of a martyr among anti-GM groups since leaving the research organisation. The assistant chief of plant industry, Dr Mark Peoples, said Dr Stapper's redundancy had nothing to do with his views on genetic engineering. A project on the management of irrigated wheat he had worked on was now finished.
Dr Peoples said a mediator was used in 2004 to resolve a dispute between Dr Stapper and the then head of the plant industry division, Dr Jim Peacock, who is now Australia's chief scientist. "I guess it still preyed on Maarten's mind … but it went through the due mediation process."
Dr Peoples also denied that CSIRO's research was being hijacked by pro-GM groups. About $7 million, less than 1 per cent of the total budget, was spent on GM crops, compared with $45 million on sustainable agriculture. Co-investment with private corporations on GM crop research equalled about 0.2 per cent of CSIRO's total budget.
But Biological Farmers of Australia and the Gene Ethics group say Dr Stapper's dismissal is outrageous as his research is critical to the organic sector and to thousands of farmers developing better soil biology.
"This travesty of justice shows again that priorities for taxpayer-funded research are grossly distorted by CSIRO contracts with companies that direct public funds to private profits," the director of Gene Ethics, Bob Phelps, said. "Stapper was sacked because GM giants like Bayer and Monsanto can't patent know-how on healthier soils."
Scott Kinnear from Biological Farmers said: "We have for many years been concerned at the commercialisation of research within CSIRO whereby patentable technologies with income-generation potential are favoured. This applies to their research into genetically engineered foods which has cost CSIRO many tens of millions of dollars for no commercial food product to show."
Dr Stapper said he was sceptical about claims that GM plants improved crop yields and called for more studies on the safety of GM stockfeeds.
"We can learn to use the power of nature rather than fighting it with synthetic chemicals and unproven new technologies in a war we can't win," Dr Stapper said.
Monday, 28 May 2007
Thursday, 24 May 2007
GM does not feed the world
Proponents of GM claim that it will feed the world!!!
"In Argentina, the ‘success' of the GM soybean story must largely be attributed to marketing by the seed companies involved, rather than scientific evidence and farmer experience.” Walter Pengue, agricultural engineer specialized in genetic improvement at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Argentina is the world's second largest producer of genetically engineered crops, in particular soy. Eight years after the introduction of GM soy, the biotech industry's claims that its crops are environmentally and socially benign have yet to bear fruit. Increasing evidence shows that GM soy is exacerbating the existing agricultural model, which is increasing poverty, damaging the environment and threatening food security for the vast majority of Argentineans.
During the last quarter of a century, soybean production increased at a swift rate from an area of 38,000 hectares in 1970 to approximately 13 million hectares in 2003. Around 70 percent of the soy harvested is converted into oil, and most of it is exported. Argentina is the source of 81 percent of the world's exported soy oil, and 36 percent of the soybean meal.
GM soy was introduced in Argentina in the last half of the 1990s. Argentinean farmers started using the GM ‘Roundup Ready Soy' sold by Monsanto in 1996, and after a few years practically all of the soy produced in the country was genetically modified.
smaller yields and more herbicides
Two of the biotech industry's main arguments are that GM crops increase yields and that they require fewer herbicides. The experience in Argentina shows exactly the opposite. Roundup Ready soy does not have higher yields. The increase in Argentinean soy production is the result of an increase in acreage, for example by the replacement of other crops with soy or by using more forestland, contributing to deforestation.
Roundup Ready soy has proven to require more, not less, herbicide than conventional soy. In 2001, more than 9.1 million more kilograms of herbicide were used for GM soy in comparison with non-GM. The use of glyphosate herbicide (sold by Monsanto) doubled from 28 million liters in the period 1997-98 to 56 million liters in 1998-1999, and reached 100 million in the 2002 season.
Moreover, weeds resistant to Roundup Ready soy have already been identified in Argentina , and this is contributing further to the increased use of herbicides. This weed resistance has prompted the use of highly toxic herbicides with Roundup Ready soy, and farmers have started using herbicides, including some that are banned in other countries (including 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, Atrazine, Paraquat and Metsulphuron Methyl).
more poverty
A myth constantly promoted by proponents of GM crops is that they are key to solving global hunger and poverty. The example of Argentina , the world's second largest producer of GM crops, demonstrates the opposite.
Millions of Argentineans go to bed hungry each night. There are many causes for the current situation in Argentina , but is clear that the promotion of GM soy is further boosting the current model of export-oriented agriculture. This model is enriching a few and relegating the majority of Argentineans to poverty. Within the past decade, 160,000 small farming families have been forced from the land, unable to compete with large farms. GM soy has exacerbated this trend towards large-scale, industrialized agriculture, and is thus aggravating poverty.
potential health risks
Faced with an increase in poverty, large amounts of soy and a lack of other agricultural products, the Argentinean government began to promote soy as a healthy alternative to traditional foodstuffs such as meat and milk. A campaign called ‘Soja Solidaridad' (Soy Solidarity) was launched. Soup kitchens started serving soy-based meals, and cookbooks were written with soy-based recipes. As a result, many people are consuming soy-based foods on a daily basis. This entails potential risks for the health of these populations. Although soy can form part of a healthy diet, there is a large body of scientific evidence showing that an over-reliance upon soy can have nutritionally damaging effects. Too much soy can inhibit the absorption of calcium, iron, zinc and Vitamin B12, and may produce problems like early onset of puberty in girls.
source: Grupo de Reflexion Rural Argentina
"In Argentina, the ‘success' of the GM soybean story must largely be attributed to marketing by the seed companies involved, rather than scientific evidence and farmer experience.” Walter Pengue, agricultural engineer specialized in genetic improvement at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Argentina is the world's second largest producer of genetically engineered crops, in particular soy. Eight years after the introduction of GM soy, the biotech industry's claims that its crops are environmentally and socially benign have yet to bear fruit. Increasing evidence shows that GM soy is exacerbating the existing agricultural model, which is increasing poverty, damaging the environment and threatening food security for the vast majority of Argentineans.
During the last quarter of a century, soybean production increased at a swift rate from an area of 38,000 hectares in 1970 to approximately 13 million hectares in 2003. Around 70 percent of the soy harvested is converted into oil, and most of it is exported. Argentina is the source of 81 percent of the world's exported soy oil, and 36 percent of the soybean meal.
GM soy was introduced in Argentina in the last half of the 1990s. Argentinean farmers started using the GM ‘Roundup Ready Soy' sold by Monsanto in 1996, and after a few years practically all of the soy produced in the country was genetically modified.
smaller yields and more herbicides
Two of the biotech industry's main arguments are that GM crops increase yields and that they require fewer herbicides. The experience in Argentina shows exactly the opposite. Roundup Ready soy does not have higher yields. The increase in Argentinean soy production is the result of an increase in acreage, for example by the replacement of other crops with soy or by using more forestland, contributing to deforestation.
Roundup Ready soy has proven to require more, not less, herbicide than conventional soy. In 2001, more than 9.1 million more kilograms of herbicide were used for GM soy in comparison with non-GM. The use of glyphosate herbicide (sold by Monsanto) doubled from 28 million liters in the period 1997-98 to 56 million liters in 1998-1999, and reached 100 million in the 2002 season.
Moreover, weeds resistant to Roundup Ready soy have already been identified in Argentina , and this is contributing further to the increased use of herbicides. This weed resistance has prompted the use of highly toxic herbicides with Roundup Ready soy, and farmers have started using herbicides, including some that are banned in other countries (including 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, Atrazine, Paraquat and Metsulphuron Methyl).
more poverty
A myth constantly promoted by proponents of GM crops is that they are key to solving global hunger and poverty. The example of Argentina , the world's second largest producer of GM crops, demonstrates the opposite.
Millions of Argentineans go to bed hungry each night. There are many causes for the current situation in Argentina , but is clear that the promotion of GM soy is further boosting the current model of export-oriented agriculture. This model is enriching a few and relegating the majority of Argentineans to poverty. Within the past decade, 160,000 small farming families have been forced from the land, unable to compete with large farms. GM soy has exacerbated this trend towards large-scale, industrialized agriculture, and is thus aggravating poverty.
potential health risks
Faced with an increase in poverty, large amounts of soy and a lack of other agricultural products, the Argentinean government began to promote soy as a healthy alternative to traditional foodstuffs such as meat and milk. A campaign called ‘Soja Solidaridad' (Soy Solidarity) was launched. Soup kitchens started serving soy-based meals, and cookbooks were written with soy-based recipes. As a result, many people are consuming soy-based foods on a daily basis. This entails potential risks for the health of these populations. Although soy can form part of a healthy diet, there is a large body of scientific evidence showing that an over-reliance upon soy can have nutritionally damaging effects. Too much soy can inhibit the absorption of calcium, iron, zinc and Vitamin B12, and may produce problems like early onset of puberty in girls.
source: Grupo de Reflexion Rural Argentina
Eating genetically modified food is gambling with your health
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Corporate and Government
Lies about the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods, (www.seedsofdeception.com)
Published by Green Books, UK, May 2004
Genetically modified foods are those which have foreign genes inserted into their DNA.
While scientists originally assumed that the inserted genes would only add a particular
desired trait to the crop, new evidence suggests that the host’s normal natural genes can get
switched off, turned on permanently, damaged, or altered in the process. And that’s just some
of the many ways that GM foods may create unpredicted and potentially dangerous side
effects.
A January 2001 report from an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada said it was
“scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe, and that the “default
prediction” for any GM foods is the creation of unintended side effects. They called for
safety testing, looking for short- and long-term human toxicity, allergenicity, and other health
effects.1
Unfortunately, there have only been about a dozen peer-reviewed animal feeding safety
studies. The most in-depth one showed evidence of damaged immune systems, digestive
problems, and excessive cell growth in rats fed an experimental GM potato. Rats also had
smaller brains, livers, and testicles. The scientists identified the process of genetic
modification as the probable cause—the same process used in creating most GM food on the
market.2 When the scientist went public with his findings, he was fired from his job after 35
years, and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. Unfortunately, no published study has yet tested
the GM food on the market to see if they create these same damaging effects in laboratory
animals or humans.
Rats fed the genetically modified FlavrSavr tomato developed stomach lesions. Seven of
forty rats died within two weeks. The crop was approved, but has since been taken off the
market.
The only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that the transgenes from soy burgers
and a soy milkshake transferred to the bacteria inside the digestive tract after only one meal,
making the bacteria resistant to herbicide.3 (The biotech industry had previously said that
such a transfer was impossible.) The World Health Organization, the British and American
Medical Associations, and several other groups have expressed concern that if the “antibiotic
resistant marker genes” used in GM foods got transferred to bacteria, it could create superdiseases that cannot be treated with antibiotics.4 Likewise, if the gene engineered in corn to create the Bt pesticide were to jump to bacteria, it might be transforming our gut bacteria into living pesticide factories. Would this be harmful? Mice fed the Bt pesticide developed immune responses equal to that created by cholera toxin.
Mice also had an adjuvant response, which can increase their susceptibility to allergies. Some
developed abnormal cell growth in their small intestines. Farm workers exposed to Bt
developed skin reactions and antibody responses in blood tests. Thirty-nine Philippinos living
next to a Bt cornfield developed skin, intestinal, and respiratory reactions while the corn was
pollinating. Preliminary tests of their blood showed an immune response to Bt.
If the promoter, inserted into DNA to keep the foreign gene permanently turned on, were to
transfer to human gut bacteria or internal organs, the results may be far more dangerous.
Promoters can unintentionally switch on other naturally occurring genes in the DNA, causing
them to pump out potentially toxic or allergenic proteins. They may also create a “hotspot,” a
point of genetic instability that can wreak havoc on DNA structure and function. Some
scientists believe that promoters might switch on dormant viruses that have become
embedded within the DNA, or might even generate uncontrolled cell growth that could
theoretically lead to cancer. (Evidence of cell growth was discovered in three of the published
animal feeding studies on GM foods.) On February 22, the Norwegian Institute for Gene
Ecology announced the sobering news that intact promoters were found in rat tissue two
hours, six hours, and three days after rats were fed a single meal with GM material. They also
verified that the promoter does work inside human DNA, in vitro.
In the 1980’s a deadly epidemic was traced to the food supplement L-tryptophan, created
from genetically modified bacteria. About 100 Americans died and an estimated 5-10,000 fell
sick—some were permanently disabled. Biotech proponents successfully diverted the blame
away from genetic engineering by attributing the disease to changes in the filtration system at
the factory. It is now known, however, that hundreds had contracted the disease from
genetically modified versions of L-tryptophan created during the four years prior to the
change in the filter. The disease created by the contaminated L-tryptophan was acute, rare, and came on quickly. If all three of these characteristics had not been present, it is unlikely that doctors would have identified the supplement as the cause; it might still be on the market. This begs the question, Are there other genetically modified products on the market creating serous health problems that are not being traced?
According to a March 2001 report, the Center for Disease Control says that food is
responsible for twice the number of illnesses in the U.S. compared to estimates just seven
years earlier. This increase roughly corresponds to the period when Americans have been
eating lots of newly introduced GM foods. Could that be contributing to the 5,000 deaths,
325,000 hospitalizations, and 76 million illnesses related to food each year? It’s hard to say
since there is no monitoring in place.
In the UK—one of the few places that do annual evaluations of allergy statistics— soy
allergies skyrocketed by 50% just after GM soy was imported for the first time from the
United States.5 This might have resulted from the increased amount of the most common soy
allergen, trypsin inhibitor, in the genetically modified Roundup Ready® soy6 or perhaps from
the protein in that soy that has never before been part of the human food supply.
Rats fed GM soy showed odd shaped cell nuclei in their livers. Rats fed GM canola had livers
that were 15% heavier, and rats fed GM corn had several unexplained anomalies. Pigs fed
GM corn on more than twenty farms in the Midwest developed false pregnancies and other
reproductive problems. Twelve cows fed GM corn mysteriously died in Germany. And
eyewitness reports from all over North American describe how several types of animals,
including cows, pigs, geese, elk, deer, squirrels, and rats, when given a choice, avoid eating
GM foods. Milk and dairy products from cows treated with the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (bGH) milk contain an increased amount of the hormone IGF-1, which is one of the highest risk factors associated with breast7 and prostate cancer.8
One of the most dangerous aspects of genetic engineering is the closed thinking and
consistent effort to silence those with contrary evidence or concerns. Just before stepping
down from office, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman admitted the following:
“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was
good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve
the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . And there was
a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re
stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost
an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view”9
Contrast this with the warning by the editors of Nature Biotechnology: “The risks in
biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable in science and commerce.
It is prudent to recognize and address those risks, not compound them by overly optimistic or
foolhardy behavior.”10
In spite of such warnings and the mounting evidence of potential dangers, the United States
Food and Drug Administration claims that GM foods are no different and do not require
safety testing. A manufacturer can introduce a GM food without even informing the
government or consumers. Internal FDA documents made public from a lawsuit, however,
reveal that agency scientists warned that GM foods might create toxins, allergies, nutritional
problems, and new diseases that might be difficult to identify. They insisted that each GM
variety should be subjected to long-term safety tests before being allowed on the market.
How could the agency ignore their own scientists and put such a dangerous industry-friendly
policy in place? One hint was that a former attorney to the biotech giant Monsanto was in
charge of FDA policy making. Another hint comes from a memo by former FDA
Commissioner David Kessler, who described the agency’s policy as “consistent with the
general biotechnology policy established by the Office of the President.” He said, “It also
responds to White House interest in assuring the safe, speedy development of the U.S.
biotechnology industry.”11
Thus, the biotech companies themselves determine if their own foods are safe. While they
voluntarily submit studies, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, they
contain “technical shortcomings in the safety data . . . as well as some obvious errors that the
FDA failed to detect.” 12 There are also a handful of published industry-sponsored studies.
But many scientists describe these as “designed to avoid finding any problems.”13,14 With
soybean research, for example, serious nutritional differences between GM and natural soy
were omitted from a published paper. Feeding studies masked any problems by using mature
animals instead of young ones and by diluting their GM soy 10 to 1 with non-GM protein. A
laboratory was instructed to use an obsolete and less precise method to detect phytoestrogens.
Milk was pasteurized 120 times longer than normal and corn was heated four and a half times
longer. GM corn would not pass the FAO/WHO recommended tests designed to prevent
allergenic GM crops from getting on the market.
Many of the key assumptions used as the basis for industry and government safety claims
have been proven wrong or remain untested. Although they continue to promote the myth
that GM foods are needed to feed the world, according to United Nations food production
statistics, this is not true.15 Furthermore, GM crops increase reliance on agricultural
chemicals16 and actually reduce average yields17. And the economic impact from growing
GM crops has been a disaster. A close examination of the data provides a compelling case
why these foods should never have been approved, and why eating them is gambling with
your health. Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating. Smith is also on the national Genetic Engineering Committee of the Sierra Club, on the Steering Committee of the Genetic Engineering
Action Network (GEAN), on the Advisory Board of the Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, and is the founding director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. More information is available at www.seedsofdeception.com.
1 “Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology,” January, 2001:
http://www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf
2 John Vidal, “GM genes found in human gut,” The Guardian, July 17, 2002:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,756666,00.html
3 “The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health,” BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Board of Science and Education, May 1999.
4 Stephen R. Padgette and others, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 (Also see data taken from the journal archives, as it had been omitted from the published study.)
5 Mark Townsend, “Why soya is a hidden destroyer,” Daily Express, March 12, 1999.
6 Stephen R. Padgette and others, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 (Also see data taken from the journal archives, as it had been omitted from the published study.)
7 S. E. Hankinson, and others, “Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth
factor 1 and risk of breast cancer,” Lancet, vol. 351, no. 9113, 1998, pp. 1393-1396.
8 June M. Chan and others, “Plasma Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 [IGF-1] and
Prostate Cancer Risk: A Prospective Study,” Science, vol. 279, January 23, 1998,
pp. 563-566.
9 Bill Lambrecht, Dinner at the New Gene Café, p. 139.
10 “Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology,” January, 2001:
http://wwww.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/GmreportEN.pdf
11 David Kessler, “FDA Proposed Statement of Policy Clarifying the Regulation of Food Derived from Genetically Modified Plants—DECISION,” March 20, 1992, www.biointegrity.org.
12 “Plugging The Holes in Biotech Food Safety,” Center for Science in the Public Interest, Press Release, January 7 2003.
13 Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Trust Us We’re Experts, Jeremy P. Tarcher/ Putnam, New York, 2001, p154
14 Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA, 2003, pp. 34-38.
15 “Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology,” January, 2001:
http://www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf
16 Charles Benbrook, “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Eight Years,” BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 6, November 2003, http://www.biotech-info.net/Technical_Paper_6.pdf.
17 Charles Benbrook, “Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998,” Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 1, July 13, 1999:
http://www.biotech-info.net/RR_yield_drag_98.pdf.
Lies about the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods, (www.seedsofdeception.com)
Published by Green Books, UK, May 2004
Genetically modified foods are those which have foreign genes inserted into their DNA.
While scientists originally assumed that the inserted genes would only add a particular
desired trait to the crop, new evidence suggests that the host’s normal natural genes can get
switched off, turned on permanently, damaged, or altered in the process. And that’s just some
of the many ways that GM foods may create unpredicted and potentially dangerous side
effects.
A January 2001 report from an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada said it was
“scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe, and that the “default
prediction” for any GM foods is the creation of unintended side effects. They called for
safety testing, looking for short- and long-term human toxicity, allergenicity, and other health
effects.1
Unfortunately, there have only been about a dozen peer-reviewed animal feeding safety
studies. The most in-depth one showed evidence of damaged immune systems, digestive
problems, and excessive cell growth in rats fed an experimental GM potato. Rats also had
smaller brains, livers, and testicles. The scientists identified the process of genetic
modification as the probable cause—the same process used in creating most GM food on the
market.2 When the scientist went public with his findings, he was fired from his job after 35
years, and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. Unfortunately, no published study has yet tested
the GM food on the market to see if they create these same damaging effects in laboratory
animals or humans.
Rats fed the genetically modified FlavrSavr tomato developed stomach lesions. Seven of
forty rats died within two weeks. The crop was approved, but has since been taken off the
market.
The only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that the transgenes from soy burgers
and a soy milkshake transferred to the bacteria inside the digestive tract after only one meal,
making the bacteria resistant to herbicide.3 (The biotech industry had previously said that
such a transfer was impossible.) The World Health Organization, the British and American
Medical Associations, and several other groups have expressed concern that if the “antibiotic
resistant marker genes” used in GM foods got transferred to bacteria, it could create superdiseases that cannot be treated with antibiotics.4 Likewise, if the gene engineered in corn to create the Bt pesticide were to jump to bacteria, it might be transforming our gut bacteria into living pesticide factories. Would this be harmful? Mice fed the Bt pesticide developed immune responses equal to that created by cholera toxin.
Mice also had an adjuvant response, which can increase their susceptibility to allergies. Some
developed abnormal cell growth in their small intestines. Farm workers exposed to Bt
developed skin reactions and antibody responses in blood tests. Thirty-nine Philippinos living
next to a Bt cornfield developed skin, intestinal, and respiratory reactions while the corn was
pollinating. Preliminary tests of their blood showed an immune response to Bt.
If the promoter, inserted into DNA to keep the foreign gene permanently turned on, were to
transfer to human gut bacteria or internal organs, the results may be far more dangerous.
Promoters can unintentionally switch on other naturally occurring genes in the DNA, causing
them to pump out potentially toxic or allergenic proteins. They may also create a “hotspot,” a
point of genetic instability that can wreak havoc on DNA structure and function. Some
scientists believe that promoters might switch on dormant viruses that have become
embedded within the DNA, or might even generate uncontrolled cell growth that could
theoretically lead to cancer. (Evidence of cell growth was discovered in three of the published
animal feeding studies on GM foods.) On February 22, the Norwegian Institute for Gene
Ecology announced the sobering news that intact promoters were found in rat tissue two
hours, six hours, and three days after rats were fed a single meal with GM material. They also
verified that the promoter does work inside human DNA, in vitro.
In the 1980’s a deadly epidemic was traced to the food supplement L-tryptophan, created
from genetically modified bacteria. About 100 Americans died and an estimated 5-10,000 fell
sick—some were permanently disabled. Biotech proponents successfully diverted the blame
away from genetic engineering by attributing the disease to changes in the filtration system at
the factory. It is now known, however, that hundreds had contracted the disease from
genetically modified versions of L-tryptophan created during the four years prior to the
change in the filter. The disease created by the contaminated L-tryptophan was acute, rare, and came on quickly. If all three of these characteristics had not been present, it is unlikely that doctors would have identified the supplement as the cause; it might still be on the market. This begs the question, Are there other genetically modified products on the market creating serous health problems that are not being traced?
According to a March 2001 report, the Center for Disease Control says that food is
responsible for twice the number of illnesses in the U.S. compared to estimates just seven
years earlier. This increase roughly corresponds to the period when Americans have been
eating lots of newly introduced GM foods. Could that be contributing to the 5,000 deaths,
325,000 hospitalizations, and 76 million illnesses related to food each year? It’s hard to say
since there is no monitoring in place.
In the UK—one of the few places that do annual evaluations of allergy statistics— soy
allergies skyrocketed by 50% just after GM soy was imported for the first time from the
United States.5 This might have resulted from the increased amount of the most common soy
allergen, trypsin inhibitor, in the genetically modified Roundup Ready® soy6 or perhaps from
the protein in that soy that has never before been part of the human food supply.
Rats fed GM soy showed odd shaped cell nuclei in their livers. Rats fed GM canola had livers
that were 15% heavier, and rats fed GM corn had several unexplained anomalies. Pigs fed
GM corn on more than twenty farms in the Midwest developed false pregnancies and other
reproductive problems. Twelve cows fed GM corn mysteriously died in Germany. And
eyewitness reports from all over North American describe how several types of animals,
including cows, pigs, geese, elk, deer, squirrels, and rats, when given a choice, avoid eating
GM foods. Milk and dairy products from cows treated with the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (bGH) milk contain an increased amount of the hormone IGF-1, which is one of the highest risk factors associated with breast7 and prostate cancer.8
One of the most dangerous aspects of genetic engineering is the closed thinking and
consistent effort to silence those with contrary evidence or concerns. Just before stepping
down from office, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman admitted the following:
“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was
good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve
the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . And there was
a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re
stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost
an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view”9
Contrast this with the warning by the editors of Nature Biotechnology: “The risks in
biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable in science and commerce.
It is prudent to recognize and address those risks, not compound them by overly optimistic or
foolhardy behavior.”10
In spite of such warnings and the mounting evidence of potential dangers, the United States
Food and Drug Administration claims that GM foods are no different and do not require
safety testing. A manufacturer can introduce a GM food without even informing the
government or consumers. Internal FDA documents made public from a lawsuit, however,
reveal that agency scientists warned that GM foods might create toxins, allergies, nutritional
problems, and new diseases that might be difficult to identify. They insisted that each GM
variety should be subjected to long-term safety tests before being allowed on the market.
How could the agency ignore their own scientists and put such a dangerous industry-friendly
policy in place? One hint was that a former attorney to the biotech giant Monsanto was in
charge of FDA policy making. Another hint comes from a memo by former FDA
Commissioner David Kessler, who described the agency’s policy as “consistent with the
general biotechnology policy established by the Office of the President.” He said, “It also
responds to White House interest in assuring the safe, speedy development of the U.S.
biotechnology industry.”11
Thus, the biotech companies themselves determine if their own foods are safe. While they
voluntarily submit studies, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, they
contain “technical shortcomings in the safety data . . . as well as some obvious errors that the
FDA failed to detect.” 12 There are also a handful of published industry-sponsored studies.
But many scientists describe these as “designed to avoid finding any problems.”13,14 With
soybean research, for example, serious nutritional differences between GM and natural soy
were omitted from a published paper. Feeding studies masked any problems by using mature
animals instead of young ones and by diluting their GM soy 10 to 1 with non-GM protein. A
laboratory was instructed to use an obsolete and less precise method to detect phytoestrogens.
Milk was pasteurized 120 times longer than normal and corn was heated four and a half times
longer. GM corn would not pass the FAO/WHO recommended tests designed to prevent
allergenic GM crops from getting on the market.
Many of the key assumptions used as the basis for industry and government safety claims
have been proven wrong or remain untested. Although they continue to promote the myth
that GM foods are needed to feed the world, according to United Nations food production
statistics, this is not true.15 Furthermore, GM crops increase reliance on agricultural
chemicals16 and actually reduce average yields17. And the economic impact from growing
GM crops has been a disaster. A close examination of the data provides a compelling case
why these foods should never have been approved, and why eating them is gambling with
your health. Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating. Smith is also on the national Genetic Engineering Committee of the Sierra Club, on the Steering Committee of the Genetic Engineering
Action Network (GEAN), on the Advisory Board of the Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, and is the founding director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. More information is available at www.seedsofdeception.com.
1 “Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology,” January, 2001:
http://www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf
2 John Vidal, “GM genes found in human gut,” The Guardian, July 17, 2002:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,756666,00.html
3 “The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health,” BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Board of Science and Education, May 1999.
4 Stephen R. Padgette and others, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 (Also see data taken from the journal archives, as it had been omitted from the published study.)
5 Mark Townsend, “Why soya is a hidden destroyer,” Daily Express, March 12, 1999.
6 Stephen R. Padgette and others, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 (Also see data taken from the journal archives, as it had been omitted from the published study.)
7 S. E. Hankinson, and others, “Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth
factor 1 and risk of breast cancer,” Lancet, vol. 351, no. 9113, 1998, pp. 1393-1396.
8 June M. Chan and others, “Plasma Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 [IGF-1] and
Prostate Cancer Risk: A Prospective Study,” Science, vol. 279, January 23, 1998,
pp. 563-566.
9 Bill Lambrecht, Dinner at the New Gene Café, p. 139.
10 “Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology,” January, 2001:
http://wwww.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/GmreportEN.pdf
11 David Kessler, “FDA Proposed Statement of Policy Clarifying the Regulation of Food Derived from Genetically Modified Plants—DECISION,” March 20, 1992, www.biointegrity.org.
12 “Plugging The Holes in Biotech Food Safety,” Center for Science in the Public Interest, Press Release, January 7 2003.
13 Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Trust Us We’re Experts, Jeremy P. Tarcher/ Putnam, New York, 2001, p154
14 Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA, 2003, pp. 34-38.
15 “Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology,” January, 2001:
http://www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf
16 Charles Benbrook, “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Eight Years,” BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 6, November 2003, http://www.biotech-info.net/Technical_Paper_6.pdf.
17 Charles Benbrook, “Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998,” Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 1, July 13, 1999:
http://www.biotech-info.net/RR_yield_drag_98.pdf.
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
IRELAND'S GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD SCANDAL
PRESS RELEASE
Dublin, Wednesday 23 May 2007 • GM-free Ireland Network
www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI36.pdf
IRELAND’S GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD SCANDAL
Minister’s assurances blatantly untrue
Another blow to farm and food sector
DUBLIN, 23 May 2007 – The current Fianna Fáil / PD Government’s litany of lies and broken promises on genetically modified (GM) food and farming have exposed Irish farmers, food producers, food exporters, retailers, restaurants, and consumers to years of contamination by illegal and/or toxic GM ingredients.
Following a six-week investigation by Greenpeace International and the GM-free Ireland Network, the latest scandal was revealed late last Friday when the Department of Agriculture finally admitted that it failed to test a 12,313 tonne shipment of contaminated animal feed from the USA before it was unloaded from the ship MV Pakrac in Dublin on 2 April [1] and placed on the market.
As a result of this fiasco, up to 5,313 tonnes of feed contaminated by illegal and toxic GM maize varieties have entered the food chain, causing potential liver and kidney damage to consumers [2].
Contamination still underway
• Farmers have no way to find out if their livestock’s feed was or is contaminated.
• Restaurants, food retailers and food exporters don’t know if their beef, lamb, pork, poultry, eggs, milk, butter and cheese currently is contaminated by the illegal and toxic GM ingredients.
• Consumers can not choose to avoid the contaminated meat and dairy produce, because our
government supports a legal EU loophole which allows these products to be sold without a GM
label.
• This lack of labelling makes it impossible for consumers and doctors to trace any resulting
medical problems to the contaminated feed.
• Leading retailers across Europe, which prohibit GM ingredients in the animal feed chain, will be increasingly wary of Bord Bia’s Ireland – the food island branding campaign which allows meat and dairy fed on legal GM ingredients to be sold under its Quality Assurance Scheme.
Toxic GM maize
In late March, Greenpeace International contacted GM-free Ireland with information that the ship MV Pakrac, sailing from New Orleans, was due to arrive in Dublin with a cargo of animal feed that might contain Monsanto’s patented GM maize variety MON963 [3]. Although legal for feed, food and cultivation in the EU, a team of scientists at the Committee for Independent Information and Research on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) [4] in France, recently re-evaluated data from a secret feeding trial which Monsanto used to convince the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that the GM maize posed no risk to animal and human health.
The new report, published in the peer-reviewed Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, found that MON863 maize causes hepatorenal toxicity – damaging the liver and kidneys of laboratory rats [5].
Speaking at a press conference in Paris on 13 March, the report’s co-author, Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini said: "These revelations are profoundly disturbing from a health point of view. They are certainly sufficient to require new and more carefully conducted feeding studies and an immediate ban from human or animal consumption of GM maize MON 863 and all its hybrids. This maize cannot now be considered safe to eat. We are now calling urgently for a moratorium on other approved GMOs while the efficacy of current health testing methods is reassessed."
GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007
Because EFSA regularly approves GM feed and food based on similar risk assessments provided to it by the biotech companies the are supposed to regulate, the report forced EFSA to reconsider its approval not only of the MON963 maize, amidst EU-wide calls for it to review the numerous other GM food and feed products it has similarly allowed to be placed on the market across Europe so far [6].
GM-free Ireland wanted to find out (a) if the ship’s cargo included any of this toxic MON863 maize, (b) if the Department of Agriculture would analyse the imported feed (complying with the Minister of Agriculture Dáil statement that all imported feed is rigorously tested for GM content), and (c) whether any MON863 would be sold to farmers, fed to livestock, and enter our food chain.
Total breakdown of traceability system After the MV Pakrac arrived in Dublin Port on 2 April, the harbourmaster, Capt. David Dignam, said the had no knowledge of the ship’s cargo other than that it consisted of 16,000 tonnes of “agricultural products”. The importer R&H Hall informed GM-free Ireland that the cargo unloaded here did not include any maize gluten feed or pellets, but only soya hulls and distillers’ grain. While admitting that these products “most likely came from GMO crops”, the importer claimed they did not — and were not required to — carry a GM label “because they would no longer contain any DNA” from the modified crops. The
importer was apparently unaware that such products do contain transgenic DNA, and that EU labelling laws require all products containing 0.9% of more of ingredients consisting or derived from GM crops to carry a GM label regardless of their DNA content [7].
As the ship slowly unloaded its cargo in Dublin’s Alexandra Basin over the next few days, Greenpeace and GM-free Ireland obtained photographic evidence of clouds of GM dust blowing off a bucket crane and drifting in the wind across unsuspecting bankers and commodities traders in the Dublin Docklands area [8]. The ship left Dublin for the Netherlands on 5 April.
When the ship arrived at Rotterdam on 12 April, a Greenpeace biosafety patrol boat approached the vessel, whose captain said the cargo was “certified GM-free by the US authorities”, and gave the Greenpeace inspection team permission to come aboard and take samples of the suspect cargo.
Greenpeace then sent these samples to an accredited laboratory for scientific analysis.
On 27 April, Greenpeace issued a press release [9] announcing the lab results confirmed that the supposedly “GM-free” cargo tested positive for up to 33% contamination with the toxic MON863 which had been the original subject of the investigation. But the lab test also proved the cargo contained 2.4% contamination by an illegal variety of GM maize — Herculex Rw— patented by Pioneer / Dow, which is not authorised in the EU [10]. Subsequent test results showed the cargo was also contaminated by five other legal GM maize varieties, all above the mandatory labelling threshold of 0.9%.
On 30 April, GM-free Ireland issued a press release [11] calling for an immediate recall of the feed contaminated by the illegal GM maize, and for an embargo on US maize imports until a rigorous testing regime is put in place. At a European Commission press conference on the same day, an EC spokesperson said the Commission is concerned that an illegal maize had entered the EU, and that it requested the Dutch government to notify all EU member states to recall the product via the Europeanwide Rapid Alert System, as required by EU law [12]
On 7 May, the Dutch Food Safety Authority (VWA) announced it that its own tests of the cargo unloaded in Rotterdam confirmed the finding of the Greenpeace tests [13], but that full results would take six weeks. The following day, the VWA announced it would impound that portion of the cargo which had not yet been sold, but would not recall the contaminated product that had already been placed on the market. It also announced that it would increase testing for GM content in imports from the USA from one in ten shipments to one in four — thus allowing 80% of the animal feed imports entering the EU through the Netherlands to remain untested for contamination by illegal and/or toxic GM ingredients.
Government cover-up
On 3 May, our Department of Agriculture categorically denied that any maize gluten feed or pellets were unloaded here [14], claiming that this was backed up by a statement from the
Dutch Authorities.
But late last Friday (18 May), in response to questions from GM-free Ireland, the Department reversed all of its prior denials. It not only admitted that 6,260 tonnes of distillers dried grains (meal) and 6,053 tonnes of corn gluten feed pellets were unloaded here; it claimed these products were labelled as containing GM ingredients; and finally admitted that they are contaminated by the illegal GM Herculex Rw and the toxic MON863 varieties [15].
In a cynical twist to the story, the Department is now using the admission that “the products were GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007 declared as GM” and were “accompanied by certificates indicating the absence of Herculex and Bt10” [16] as an excuse for not testing the suspect cargo upon arrival.
The Department also admitted that it had received a 5-day prior notification from the importer that the cargo contained bulk feed ingredients, as required by EU law [17]. This should have triggered an automatic testing of the products before they were placed on the market.
Failure to act in time
It is now clear that the government
• failed to act on the advance warning it must have received from the importer on or before the
28th of March, that a high-risk shipment of US animal feed was on its way to Dublin;
• failed to test the shipment before or during the time it was being unloaded in Dublin from 2 to 5 April ;
• failed to issue a Rapid Alert warning and recall the products when the positive results of the lab
tests commissioned by Greenpeace were made public on 30 April;
• failed to act when the State laboratory confirmed the by now two-week old results of the
Greenpeace tests on 15 May;
• waited three more days until 4pm on Friday 18 May before admitting the cover-up, and placing a restriction order on the 7,000 tonnes that they were able to find in portal stores;
• has illegally allowed a banned substance to enter the Irish food chain and be consumed by
livestock, with the resulting meat and dairy produce sold to consumers.
“Waiting 60 days before taking action shows how little the Government cares about our food safety”, said Michael O’Callaghan of the GM-free Ireland Network. “This is the third or fourth time in two years that the Government’s failure to implement its own food safety policy has resulted in the Irish food chain being contaminated by illegal GM ingredients. Without the investigative work by Greenpeace and ourselves, this contamination would have gone undiscovered”. One can only assume that the vast majority of the annual six or seven hundred thousand tonnes of animal feed imports, which were not tested over the past five or
six years, may also have contained illegal and/or toxic varieties of GM crop products.
Minister’s assurances blatantly untrue This latest food contamination scandal provides conclusive proof that the assurances given by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mary Coughlan, about the testing of GM imports are pure fiction.
The Minister issued a written Dáil statement in December 2006, claiming that “since April 2004 all feed imports have been subjected to inspection for accuracy of GM labelling and very high levels of compliance have been detected” [18]. The Department of Agriculture issued a written statement to GM-free Ireland on 3 May, claiming that authorised officers from the Department of Agriculture and Food “take samples of all potential GM feed imports, such as soya, maize and OSR which are not declared as consisting of or containing GM ingredients and have them analysed for the presence of GM material”.
Nothing could be further from the truth:
• the Department admitted on Friday that it failed to test the Pakrac’s cargo before it was placed on the market;
• Liam Hyde of the Department’s Animal Feedingstuffs Section confirmed that imported animal feed is only tested for GM content on a random basis, adding that he was “unaware” of the scientific report that MON863 causes organ damage to laboratory animals; [19]
• Mr. Hyde also admitted (or claimed?) that all of its records of GM animal feed imports for 2006 have been irretrievably lost due to a “computer database failure” [20], making traceability and liability impossible in the event of related disease in livestock and the human population. Do they not back up their data or keep hard copies?
GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007
International repercussions
It is now clear that Irish beef, lamb, pork, poultry and dairy produce —from livestock whose diet includes illegal, untested and/or toxic varieties of GM animal feed that have never been tested — has regularly been sold to consumers at home and abroad for years, and continues to be sold today. This food scandal has international repercussions, because Ireland exports 90% of its meat and dairy produce. 93% of our exported beef goes to the EU market where leading retailers have extended their existing bans on GM-labelled food which they put in place in 2004 [21], to now exclude meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients [22].
The fact that such food continues to be marketed under Bord Bía’s “Supply Chain Assurance” and “Quality Assurance” schemes, and under Féile Bia’s “Certified from Farm to Fork” traceability scheme is rapidly destroying the market’s confidence in what remains of our country’s reputation as Ireland — the food island.
Our Department of Agriculture, Teagasc, and Bord Bía have become a marketing arm for the giant agribusiness-biotech corporations who seek to patent and control the global food supply [23]. Like ostriches with their head in the sand, these government agencies abuse our tax revenues to promote the biotech industry message that certified non-GMO animal feed is in short supply and prohibitively expensive. Teagasc recently published a document claiming that a ban on GM feed and crops “could cost Ireland nearly € 40 million per year” [24] – seemingly oblivious to the economic reality that there is no market for GM food in Europe. Leading retailers in the UK, France, Italy and Switzerland now require all meat and dairy to be sourced from certified non-GMO sources [25]. Bord Bía CEO Aidan Cotter recently
claimed that effective segregation of GM and GM-free animal feed is “no longer practicable.” This is patently untrue, as other European farmers who supply these markets have no problem sourcing supplies of certified non-GMO soya from Brazil and certified non-GMO maize products from the EU.
If Irish farmers and food exporters continue to believe the biotech industry propaganda put out by our elected representatives and civil servants, Irish meat will end up being sold as dog food in European supermarkets.
What the government should do
In response to the this GM contamination scandal, the post-election government should implement the following emergency response:
• issue an EU-wide Rapid Alert about the contaminated animal feed and derived meat and dairy
produce;
• require animal feed compounders and distributors to recall all contaminated products including those that have already been placed on sale;
• assist farmers and food processors to trace and recall all contaminated meat and dairy produce that has already been contaminated;
• return what remains of the contaminated animal feed back to the sender in the USA;
• sue the parties in the USA who are responsible for the fraudulent certification of the illegal
produce;
• compensate all parties whose have suffered economic and/or brand damage as a result of the
scandal;
• stop dealing with each separately, and take meaningful measures to prevent future
contamination;
• issue a moratorium on all US animal feed imports until a foolproof GM detection system is in
place;
• prohibit all further importation and use of Monsanto’s toxic MON863 maize;
• support the establishment of an all-island market for safe, certified non-GMO animal feed;
• terminate the Department’s legally flawed policy “to ensure the co-existence” of GM crops with conventional and organic farming;
• require that the European Food Safety Authority stop approving GM food and feed based on
secret data and risk assessments commissioned by the biotech industry, and instead take into
account the views of independent scientists and member states;
• require the European Commission to recognise the legal democratic right of Member States,
Regions and local authorities (including Irish County and Town Councils) to have the final say on whether GMO crops may be released in their areas;
• admit the failure of the previous government’s pro-GMO policy;
• work with the Northern Irish Assembly to prohibit the release of live GMO seeds, crops, trees, fish and livestock on this island, and
• declare the whole of Ireland a GMO-free zone with the most credible GM-free food brand in
Europe. GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007
What stakeholders are already doing
In response to requests from food and farm industry groups, the GM-free Ireland Network has convened a stakeholders meeting on 9 June, to discuss building the market for certified non-GMO animal feed.
Participants include farming organisations, animal feed importers and distributors, live cattle and meat exporters, food retailers, restaurateurs and chefs, and Brazil’s largest exporter of certified non-GMO soya products. The experts say there is no problem delivering the product provided that farmers create a large enough market to bring costs down and negotiate with exporters to ensure that premia paid by consumers are passed back to the producers [26].
A follow-up expert briefing on the scientific evidence of GM food and feed health risks will be held at the European Parliament Office in Dublin on 15 June.
ENDS
FOR ENQUIRIES, PLEASE CONTACT:
Michael O’Callaghan, Coordinator
GM-free Ireland Network
Tel + 353 (0)404 43885
Mobile: + 353 (0)87 799 4761
email: mail@gmfreeireland.org
web: http://www.gmfreeireland.org
NOTES FOR EDITORS:
[1] “Statement on unauthorised GM event in maize”, Irish Department of Agriculture press release, 18
May 2007.
See also:
• “Unauthorised GM maize found in imported feed”, Irish Independent, 22 May 2007,
• “Animal feed containing illegal GM maize impounded”, Irish Times, 21 May 2007.
[2] The report made headlines in the global press – but was apparently not covered in the Irish media:
• “GMO corn caused liver, kidney problems in rats: study”, Scientific American, 13 March 2007.
• “French scientists express doubt about genetically modified corn”, Deutsche Welle, 13 March
2007.
• “New study reveals signs of toxicity of GE maize approved for human consumption: Greenpeace
demands immediate withdrawal of high-risk GE products”, Greenpeace International press
release, Mar 13 2007.
• “Strong suspicions of toxicity in a GMO maize”, Le Monde, 14 March 2007.
• "The MON863 case - a chronicle of systematic deception":
www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/mon863_chronicle_of_deception
• See also abstract of CRIIGEN report in note 5 below.
[3] MON863 maize is authorised for food-and feed use in the EU. However, it is under suspicion of posing significant health risks and is currently under review by the European Food Safety Authority, after Professor Seralini, a French scientist, published a study which demonstrates that laboratory rats, fed with
a genetically engineered (GE) maize MON 863, have shown signs of toxicity in kidney and liver. Seralini, G-E, Cellier, D. & Spiroux de Vendomois, J. 2007. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Published in: "Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology".
[4] See CRIIGEN press release at http://www.criigen.org/cp_march2007.pdf and video of related press conference at http://www.criigen.org
[5] New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity, Journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Publisher Springer New York.
ISSN 0090-4341 (Print) 1432-0703 (Online). DOI 10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5. By Gilles-Eric Seralini [1] [ii] , Dominique Cellier [i], [iii], and Joel Spiroux de Vendomois [i].
GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007
[i] Committee for Independent Information and Research on Genetic Engineering
CRIIGEN, Paris, France
[ii] Laboratory of Biochemistry, Institute of Biology, University of Caen, Caen, France
[iii] Laboratory LITIS, University of Rouen, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France
Received: 18 July 2006 Accepted: 20 November 2006 Published online: 13 March 2007 at
http://www.agbios.com/docroot/decdocs/05-184-001.pdf
Abstract:
Health risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated for food or
feed is under debate throughout the world, and very little data have been published on
mid- or long-term toxicological studies with mammals. One of these studies performed
under the responsibility of Monsanto Company with a transgenic corn MON863 has been
subjected to questions from regulatory reviewers in Europe, where it was finally approved
in 2005. This necessitated a new assessment of kidney pathological findings, and the
results remained controversial. An Appeal Court action in Germany (Münster) allowed
public access in June 2005 to all the crude data from this 90-day rat-feeding study. We
independently re-analyzed these data. Appropriate statistics were added, such as a
multivariate analysis of the growth curves, and for biochemical parameters comparisons
between GMO-treated rats and the controls fed with an equivalent normal diet, and
separately with six reference diets with different compositions. We observed that after
the consumption of MON863, rats showed slight but dose-related significant variations in
growth for both sexes, resulting in 3.3% decrease in weight for males and 3.7% increase
for females. Chemistry measurements reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity, marked also
by differential sensitivities in males and females. Triglycerides increased by 2440% in
females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose 33%, respectively); urine
phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 3135% (week 14, dose 33%)
for the most important results significantly linked to the treatment in comparison to
seven diets tested. Longer experiments are essential in order to indicate the real nature
and extent of the possible pathology; with the present data it cannot be concluded that
GM corn MON863 is a safe product.
[6] “EFSA to review Monsanto maize concerns”, FoodNavigator.com, 15 March 2007.
See also “EFSA’s GM maize assessment to take several weeks”, FoodNavigator.com, 26 March 2007.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was publicly discredited in April 2006 when the EC agreed a proposal by EU Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou and EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, to overhaul EFSA’s authorisation procedures for placing GM products on EU markets. Kyprianou and Dimas criticised EFSA for routinely approving GM foods based on safety claims
made by the agri-biotech companies they are supposed to regulate, for refusing to consider independent scientific evidence on GMO risks, and for ignoring the views of the majority of EU member states which are opposed to GM food and farming. The EFSA is now legally required to take into account the opinions of member states, and to conduct independent research on the short- and long-term health and environmental risks of GM food and farming. Prior EFSA opinions on the safety of GM foods have no credibility. But the latest reports in May 2007 suggest that the reform procedure has been a failure.
[7] EU food labelling regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003:
• Art 15 (1.) c states that feed (and its components) produced from GMOs fall into the scope of the regulation. It is irrelevant whether the component or the feed actually contains any modified DNA. This so-called application principle replaces the formerly applicable detection principle. It
goes for feed just as much as for food (Art. 12).
• Art 24 regulates the labelling requirements and states clearly that material according to Art 15 falls under its scope. Art. 24 (2.) stipulates the conditions when material must be labelled as
GMO: Whenever there is any presence above 0.9% with the exception of material that is below
0.9% and "provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable."
See also “Labelling of GMO in Feedstuffs: Remarks Regarding a Recent Report by the EU Commission”.
By Jochen Koester, Director, IMCOPA (Europe) SA; published in Feed Magazine, March 2007; available for download at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/briefing/FeedMag_GMO_Labelling.pdf
GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007
[8] See photographs and press release at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac
[9] http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/new-illegal-gmo-found-in-us-sh
[10] Herculex GE insect resistant maize (59122) is genetically engineered to resist the corn rootworm.
The fact that they are in animal feed being imported into the EU raises food and feed safety issues. Although European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently gave an opinion on this maize saying it was “unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and animal health”, this is not a good indicator for the safety of Herculex maize. The confidence in EFSA’s GMO opinions has been undermined by a series of incidents in which EFSA has ignored scientific evidence (including evidence by EU member states)
pointing at negative effects (such as signs of toxicity) of GMOs on test animals.
Studies on test animals with Herculex maize show several adverse effects such as:
• statistically significant decreases in absolute reticulocyte count
• increases in mean corpuscular haemoglobin and mean corpuscular haemoglobin
concentration [*]
The findings in the blood parameters in the 90 day feeding trial are of particular importance
because these effects are noticed after only a short time. They could give an indication of toxicity in the longer term. This is similar to concerns expressed with MON863. However, EFSA simply
dismiss all these differences (as they did with MON863) saying results are within historical or
literature ranges or simply that they are “unlikely to be of any biological significance”.
(*) EFSA 2007. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on an
application (Reference EFSA-GMO-NL-2005-12) for the placing on the market of insectresistant genetically modified maize 59122, for food and feed uses, import and
processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
and Mycogen Seeds, c/o Dow Agrosciences LLC. (Question No EFSA-Q-2005-045) Opinion
adopted on 23 March 2007. The EFSA Journal (2007) 470, 1-25
[11] http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI35.pdf
[12] “Brussels urges the Netherlands to trace down bad maize”, ANP, 1 May 2007.
[13] “Netherlands refuses GM corn shipment from US”, Agence France-Presse, 9 May 2007.
“Illegal genetically engineered maize let loose in Europe - Dutch authorities order partial recall”,
Greenpeace press release, 9 May 2007.
“EC slammed for ‘complete breakdown of GM testing and labelling scheme”, press notice from GM Free Cymru, 1 May 2007.
[14] Note sent to GM-free Ireland by Martin Heffernan of the Irish Department of Agriculture
press office (corporate affairs division).
[15] “Statement on unauthorised GM event in maize”, Irish Department of Agriculture press
release, 18 May 2007.
[16] GM free Ireland requested copies of these lab certificates on 15 May, but had not yet
received them as of 22 May. These certificates will be posted on the GM-free Ireland website at
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/packrac as soon as they become available.
Note the reference to Bt10 – this is another illegal variety, 2,546 tonnes of which were landed at Greenore Port in Co. Louth in May 2005. That shipment of Bt10 was mislabelled as Bt11 – a
variety which was included in the Pakrac’s contaminated cargo. For details see
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/scandal .
[17] Department of Agriculture “Response to the questions raised by Mr O Callaghan”, sent to
GM-free Ireland on 18 May.
[18] Dáil statement by Minister for Agriculture and Food Mary Coughlan, [40579/06] in response
to a question by Mr. Boyle, TD:
GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007
Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if her attention has been drawn to the
volume of genetically modified produce and seeds imported here; and if she will make a
statement on the matter. [40579/06]
Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan):
“My Department has responsibility for the regulation of animal feed and seeds
containing GMOs. Following the coming into force, in April 2004, of EU Regulation
(EC) 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed and Regulation (EC)
1830/2003 on the labelling and traceability of GM products, all GM produce
consisting of or containing GM material in excess of 0.9% must be appropriately
labelled. This affords competent authorities the opportunity to accurately
establish the level of GM imports into the community.
Since April 2004 all feed imports have been subjected to inspection for accuracy
of GM labelling and very high levels of compliance have been detected. The level
of GM feed imported into Ireland in 2005 was as follows:
GM maize: 464,000t (95% of total imports)
GM Soya: 204,000t (95% of total imports)
GM Rapeseed: 4,300t (3% of total imports)
GM cottonseed: none out of a total of 11,000t
In the case of GM seeds the Commission are still examining proposals relating to
labelling thresholds. In the interim a voluntary system, involving the majority of
Member States including Ireland, was established whereby imports of certain at
risk seeds such as maize, fodder beet, oil seed rape and soya bean seed must be
accompanied by a laboratory certificate showing the levels of GM in any seed to
be below identified thresholds of 0.3% and 0.5% depending on the crop. All
certificates received indicated full compliance with these thresholds.”
See also “Sargent slams Coughlan's irresponsible approach to GMOs”, Irish Green Party press release, 1
December 2006.
[19] Personal communication from Mr. Hyde by phone to Michael O’Callaghan of GM-free Ireland, around
28 March 2007
[20] ibid.
[21] In January 2005, Greenpeace published a detailed report “No Market for GM-labelled food in Europe”, showing that the EU market for GM labelled food products is virtually closed. Europe's top 30
retailers and top 30 food & drink producers have policies and non-GM commitments which reveal a massive international food industry rejection of GM ingredients. This cuts across the industry from food
and drink manufacturers to retailers, and includes everything from snacks and ready meals to pet food and beer. The combined total food and drink sales of the 49 companies with a stated non-GM policy in their main market or throughout the EU (27 retailers and 22 food and drink producers) amounts to € 646
billion, more than 60% of the total € 1,069 billion European food and drink sales. Irish food companies doing business internationally need to implement a non-GM policy without delay. The report can be downloaded here as a large 2MB pdf file:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/NoMarketForGMFood.pdf
[22] In Switzerland, Migros and Coop systematically ban all GM animal feed in their supermarket brands.
In the UK (Tesco, Sainsburys, Marks & Spencer and Budgen Stores), in France (Carrefour, Cora, Auchan and Monoprix), and in Italy (Coop Italia) all have their own quality labels for meat and dairy produce from livestock fed a certified GM-free diet. Several Italian and French PDOs for cheese are now looking for supplies of GM-free animal feed. In Austria and the Netherlands, the same applies to milk and beef.
In the UK, standard poultry sold in supermarkets has a label certifying GM-free feed.
[23] Teagasc's Information Centre for Genetically Modified (GM) Crops in Ireland has launched a web site at http://www.gmoinfo.ie whose stated purpose is "to examine the possible economical and environmental impact of GM crops" and "to present this research in an impartial format to support the reader's understanding of the potential issues associated with GM crop cultivation".
For its first few years of operation, this tax-payer supported Teagasc website read like it was written by the biotech industry. It completely failed to mention any of the problems caused by the release of GM seeds and crops. These include the fact that any food carrying a GM label is refused by over 70% of EU GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007 consumers; that the commercial cultivation of GMO seeds and crops is banned in all or part of 22 EU member states; that GM crop contamination incidents have been reported in 40 countries; the scientific evidence of deaths and disease attributable to GM food ingredients in laboratory animals, livestock and the human population; the environmental risks including loss of biodiversity and superweeds; mandatory GM labelling; consequent loss of market share; crop patent royalties, cross-contamination and patent infringement lawsuits, the expropriation of farmers crops by giant agri-biotech corporate patent owners
under the WTO's Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement and related European and Irish patent laws; and the insurance industry’s refusal to provide cover against GM risks.
Following heavy criticism from GM-free Ireland, Teagasc has replace the web site’s content with a notice saying “the website is currently under construction.”
[24] “GM-free island could cost €40m a year”, Irish Examiner, 3 May 2007.
[25] See note 22 above.
[26] This private stakeholders meeting is by invitation only. To facilitate free and open discussion, the proceedings will be held under the Chatham House Rule (participants may share information received providing speaker’s identities and affiliations remain confidential). If you would like to submit a request for invitation, please contact Michael O’Callaghan at GM-free Ireland on +353 (0)404 43885 or by email
to mail@gmfreeireland.org
Details of the briefing on the heatlh risks of GM feed and food at the European Parliament Office in Dublin on 15 June will be posted on the GM-free Ireland web site at http://www.gmfreeireland.org
Dublin, Wednesday 23 May 2007 • GM-free Ireland Network
www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI36.pdf
IRELAND’S GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD SCANDAL
Minister’s assurances blatantly untrue
Another blow to farm and food sector
DUBLIN, 23 May 2007 – The current Fianna Fáil / PD Government’s litany of lies and broken promises on genetically modified (GM) food and farming have exposed Irish farmers, food producers, food exporters, retailers, restaurants, and consumers to years of contamination by illegal and/or toxic GM ingredients.
Following a six-week investigation by Greenpeace International and the GM-free Ireland Network, the latest scandal was revealed late last Friday when the Department of Agriculture finally admitted that it failed to test a 12,313 tonne shipment of contaminated animal feed from the USA before it was unloaded from the ship MV Pakrac in Dublin on 2 April [1] and placed on the market.
As a result of this fiasco, up to 5,313 tonnes of feed contaminated by illegal and toxic GM maize varieties have entered the food chain, causing potential liver and kidney damage to consumers [2].
Contamination still underway
• Farmers have no way to find out if their livestock’s feed was or is contaminated.
• Restaurants, food retailers and food exporters don’t know if their beef, lamb, pork, poultry, eggs, milk, butter and cheese currently is contaminated by the illegal and toxic GM ingredients.
• Consumers can not choose to avoid the contaminated meat and dairy produce, because our
government supports a legal EU loophole which allows these products to be sold without a GM
label.
• This lack of labelling makes it impossible for consumers and doctors to trace any resulting
medical problems to the contaminated feed.
• Leading retailers across Europe, which prohibit GM ingredients in the animal feed chain, will be increasingly wary of Bord Bia’s Ireland – the food island branding campaign which allows meat and dairy fed on legal GM ingredients to be sold under its Quality Assurance Scheme.
Toxic GM maize
In late March, Greenpeace International contacted GM-free Ireland with information that the ship MV Pakrac, sailing from New Orleans, was due to arrive in Dublin with a cargo of animal feed that might contain Monsanto’s patented GM maize variety MON963 [3]. Although legal for feed, food and cultivation in the EU, a team of scientists at the Committee for Independent Information and Research on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) [4] in France, recently re-evaluated data from a secret feeding trial which Monsanto used to convince the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that the GM maize posed no risk to animal and human health.
The new report, published in the peer-reviewed Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, found that MON863 maize causes hepatorenal toxicity – damaging the liver and kidneys of laboratory rats [5].
Speaking at a press conference in Paris on 13 March, the report’s co-author, Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini said: "These revelations are profoundly disturbing from a health point of view. They are certainly sufficient to require new and more carefully conducted feeding studies and an immediate ban from human or animal consumption of GM maize MON 863 and all its hybrids. This maize cannot now be considered safe to eat. We are now calling urgently for a moratorium on other approved GMOs while the efficacy of current health testing methods is reassessed."
GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007
Because EFSA regularly approves GM feed and food based on similar risk assessments provided to it by the biotech companies the are supposed to regulate, the report forced EFSA to reconsider its approval not only of the MON963 maize, amidst EU-wide calls for it to review the numerous other GM food and feed products it has similarly allowed to be placed on the market across Europe so far [6].
GM-free Ireland wanted to find out (a) if the ship’s cargo included any of this toxic MON863 maize, (b) if the Department of Agriculture would analyse the imported feed (complying with the Minister of Agriculture Dáil statement that all imported feed is rigorously tested for GM content), and (c) whether any MON863 would be sold to farmers, fed to livestock, and enter our food chain.
Total breakdown of traceability system After the MV Pakrac arrived in Dublin Port on 2 April, the harbourmaster, Capt. David Dignam, said the had no knowledge of the ship’s cargo other than that it consisted of 16,000 tonnes of “agricultural products”. The importer R&H Hall informed GM-free Ireland that the cargo unloaded here did not include any maize gluten feed or pellets, but only soya hulls and distillers’ grain. While admitting that these products “most likely came from GMO crops”, the importer claimed they did not — and were not required to — carry a GM label “because they would no longer contain any DNA” from the modified crops. The
importer was apparently unaware that such products do contain transgenic DNA, and that EU labelling laws require all products containing 0.9% of more of ingredients consisting or derived from GM crops to carry a GM label regardless of their DNA content [7].
As the ship slowly unloaded its cargo in Dublin’s Alexandra Basin over the next few days, Greenpeace and GM-free Ireland obtained photographic evidence of clouds of GM dust blowing off a bucket crane and drifting in the wind across unsuspecting bankers and commodities traders in the Dublin Docklands area [8]. The ship left Dublin for the Netherlands on 5 April.
When the ship arrived at Rotterdam on 12 April, a Greenpeace biosafety patrol boat approached the vessel, whose captain said the cargo was “certified GM-free by the US authorities”, and gave the Greenpeace inspection team permission to come aboard and take samples of the suspect cargo.
Greenpeace then sent these samples to an accredited laboratory for scientific analysis.
On 27 April, Greenpeace issued a press release [9] announcing the lab results confirmed that the supposedly “GM-free” cargo tested positive for up to 33% contamination with the toxic MON863 which had been the original subject of the investigation. But the lab test also proved the cargo contained 2.4% contamination by an illegal variety of GM maize — Herculex Rw— patented by Pioneer / Dow, which is not authorised in the EU [10]. Subsequent test results showed the cargo was also contaminated by five other legal GM maize varieties, all above the mandatory labelling threshold of 0.9%.
On 30 April, GM-free Ireland issued a press release [11] calling for an immediate recall of the feed contaminated by the illegal GM maize, and for an embargo on US maize imports until a rigorous testing regime is put in place. At a European Commission press conference on the same day, an EC spokesperson said the Commission is concerned that an illegal maize had entered the EU, and that it requested the Dutch government to notify all EU member states to recall the product via the Europeanwide Rapid Alert System, as required by EU law [12]
On 7 May, the Dutch Food Safety Authority (VWA) announced it that its own tests of the cargo unloaded in Rotterdam confirmed the finding of the Greenpeace tests [13], but that full results would take six weeks. The following day, the VWA announced it would impound that portion of the cargo which had not yet been sold, but would not recall the contaminated product that had already been placed on the market. It also announced that it would increase testing for GM content in imports from the USA from one in ten shipments to one in four — thus allowing 80% of the animal feed imports entering the EU through the Netherlands to remain untested for contamination by illegal and/or toxic GM ingredients.
Government cover-up
On 3 May, our Department of Agriculture categorically denied that any maize gluten feed or pellets were unloaded here [14], claiming that this was backed up by a statement from the
Dutch Authorities.
But late last Friday (18 May), in response to questions from GM-free Ireland, the Department reversed all of its prior denials. It not only admitted that 6,260 tonnes of distillers dried grains (meal) and 6,053 tonnes of corn gluten feed pellets were unloaded here; it claimed these products were labelled as containing GM ingredients; and finally admitted that they are contaminated by the illegal GM Herculex Rw and the toxic MON863 varieties [15].
In a cynical twist to the story, the Department is now using the admission that “the products were GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007 declared as GM” and were “accompanied by certificates indicating the absence of Herculex and Bt10” [16] as an excuse for not testing the suspect cargo upon arrival.
The Department also admitted that it had received a 5-day prior notification from the importer that the cargo contained bulk feed ingredients, as required by EU law [17]. This should have triggered an automatic testing of the products before they were placed on the market.
Failure to act in time
It is now clear that the government
• failed to act on the advance warning it must have received from the importer on or before the
28th of March, that a high-risk shipment of US animal feed was on its way to Dublin;
• failed to test the shipment before or during the time it was being unloaded in Dublin from 2 to 5 April ;
• failed to issue a Rapid Alert warning and recall the products when the positive results of the lab
tests commissioned by Greenpeace were made public on 30 April;
• failed to act when the State laboratory confirmed the by now two-week old results of the
Greenpeace tests on 15 May;
• waited three more days until 4pm on Friday 18 May before admitting the cover-up, and placing a restriction order on the 7,000 tonnes that they were able to find in portal stores;
• has illegally allowed a banned substance to enter the Irish food chain and be consumed by
livestock, with the resulting meat and dairy produce sold to consumers.
“Waiting 60 days before taking action shows how little the Government cares about our food safety”, said Michael O’Callaghan of the GM-free Ireland Network. “This is the third or fourth time in two years that the Government’s failure to implement its own food safety policy has resulted in the Irish food chain being contaminated by illegal GM ingredients. Without the investigative work by Greenpeace and ourselves, this contamination would have gone undiscovered”. One can only assume that the vast majority of the annual six or seven hundred thousand tonnes of animal feed imports, which were not tested over the past five or
six years, may also have contained illegal and/or toxic varieties of GM crop products.
Minister’s assurances blatantly untrue This latest food contamination scandal provides conclusive proof that the assurances given by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mary Coughlan, about the testing of GM imports are pure fiction.
The Minister issued a written Dáil statement in December 2006, claiming that “since April 2004 all feed imports have been subjected to inspection for accuracy of GM labelling and very high levels of compliance have been detected” [18]. The Department of Agriculture issued a written statement to GM-free Ireland on 3 May, claiming that authorised officers from the Department of Agriculture and Food “take samples of all potential GM feed imports, such as soya, maize and OSR which are not declared as consisting of or containing GM ingredients and have them analysed for the presence of GM material”.
Nothing could be further from the truth:
• the Department admitted on Friday that it failed to test the Pakrac’s cargo before it was placed on the market;
• Liam Hyde of the Department’s Animal Feedingstuffs Section confirmed that imported animal feed is only tested for GM content on a random basis, adding that he was “unaware” of the scientific report that MON863 causes organ damage to laboratory animals; [19]
• Mr. Hyde also admitted (or claimed?) that all of its records of GM animal feed imports for 2006 have been irretrievably lost due to a “computer database failure” [20], making traceability and liability impossible in the event of related disease in livestock and the human population. Do they not back up their data or keep hard copies?
GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007
International repercussions
It is now clear that Irish beef, lamb, pork, poultry and dairy produce —from livestock whose diet includes illegal, untested and/or toxic varieties of GM animal feed that have never been tested — has regularly been sold to consumers at home and abroad for years, and continues to be sold today. This food scandal has international repercussions, because Ireland exports 90% of its meat and dairy produce. 93% of our exported beef goes to the EU market where leading retailers have extended their existing bans on GM-labelled food which they put in place in 2004 [21], to now exclude meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients [22].
The fact that such food continues to be marketed under Bord Bía’s “Supply Chain Assurance” and “Quality Assurance” schemes, and under Féile Bia’s “Certified from Farm to Fork” traceability scheme is rapidly destroying the market’s confidence in what remains of our country’s reputation as Ireland — the food island.
Our Department of Agriculture, Teagasc, and Bord Bía have become a marketing arm for the giant agribusiness-biotech corporations who seek to patent and control the global food supply [23]. Like ostriches with their head in the sand, these government agencies abuse our tax revenues to promote the biotech industry message that certified non-GMO animal feed is in short supply and prohibitively expensive. Teagasc recently published a document claiming that a ban on GM feed and crops “could cost Ireland nearly € 40 million per year” [24] – seemingly oblivious to the economic reality that there is no market for GM food in Europe. Leading retailers in the UK, France, Italy and Switzerland now require all meat and dairy to be sourced from certified non-GMO sources [25]. Bord Bía CEO Aidan Cotter recently
claimed that effective segregation of GM and GM-free animal feed is “no longer practicable.” This is patently untrue, as other European farmers who supply these markets have no problem sourcing supplies of certified non-GMO soya from Brazil and certified non-GMO maize products from the EU.
If Irish farmers and food exporters continue to believe the biotech industry propaganda put out by our elected representatives and civil servants, Irish meat will end up being sold as dog food in European supermarkets.
What the government should do
In response to the this GM contamination scandal, the post-election government should implement the following emergency response:
• issue an EU-wide Rapid Alert about the contaminated animal feed and derived meat and dairy
produce;
• require animal feed compounders and distributors to recall all contaminated products including those that have already been placed on sale;
• assist farmers and food processors to trace and recall all contaminated meat and dairy produce that has already been contaminated;
• return what remains of the contaminated animal feed back to the sender in the USA;
• sue the parties in the USA who are responsible for the fraudulent certification of the illegal
produce;
• compensate all parties whose have suffered economic and/or brand damage as a result of the
scandal;
• stop dealing with each separately, and take meaningful measures to prevent future
contamination;
• issue a moratorium on all US animal feed imports until a foolproof GM detection system is in
place;
• prohibit all further importation and use of Monsanto’s toxic MON863 maize;
• support the establishment of an all-island market for safe, certified non-GMO animal feed;
• terminate the Department’s legally flawed policy “to ensure the co-existence” of GM crops with conventional and organic farming;
• require that the European Food Safety Authority stop approving GM food and feed based on
secret data and risk assessments commissioned by the biotech industry, and instead take into
account the views of independent scientists and member states;
• require the European Commission to recognise the legal democratic right of Member States,
Regions and local authorities (including Irish County and Town Councils) to have the final say on whether GMO crops may be released in their areas;
• admit the failure of the previous government’s pro-GMO policy;
• work with the Northern Irish Assembly to prohibit the release of live GMO seeds, crops, trees, fish and livestock on this island, and
• declare the whole of Ireland a GMO-free zone with the most credible GM-free food brand in
Europe. GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007
What stakeholders are already doing
In response to requests from food and farm industry groups, the GM-free Ireland Network has convened a stakeholders meeting on 9 June, to discuss building the market for certified non-GMO animal feed.
Participants include farming organisations, animal feed importers and distributors, live cattle and meat exporters, food retailers, restaurateurs and chefs, and Brazil’s largest exporter of certified non-GMO soya products. The experts say there is no problem delivering the product provided that farmers create a large enough market to bring costs down and negotiate with exporters to ensure that premia paid by consumers are passed back to the producers [26].
A follow-up expert briefing on the scientific evidence of GM food and feed health risks will be held at the European Parliament Office in Dublin on 15 June.
ENDS
FOR ENQUIRIES, PLEASE CONTACT:
Michael O’Callaghan, Coordinator
GM-free Ireland Network
Tel + 353 (0)404 43885
Mobile: + 353 (0)87 799 4761
email: mail@gmfreeireland.org
web: http://www.gmfreeireland.org
NOTES FOR EDITORS:
[1] “Statement on unauthorised GM event in maize”, Irish Department of Agriculture press release, 18
May 2007.
See also:
• “Unauthorised GM maize found in imported feed”, Irish Independent, 22 May 2007,
• “Animal feed containing illegal GM maize impounded”, Irish Times, 21 May 2007.
[2] The report made headlines in the global press – but was apparently not covered in the Irish media:
• “GMO corn caused liver, kidney problems in rats: study”, Scientific American, 13 March 2007.
• “French scientists express doubt about genetically modified corn”, Deutsche Welle, 13 March
2007.
• “New study reveals signs of toxicity of GE maize approved for human consumption: Greenpeace
demands immediate withdrawal of high-risk GE products”, Greenpeace International press
release, Mar 13 2007.
• “Strong suspicions of toxicity in a GMO maize”, Le Monde, 14 March 2007.
• "The MON863 case - a chronicle of systematic deception":
www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/mon863_chronicle_of_deception
• See also abstract of CRIIGEN report in note 5 below.
[3] MON863 maize is authorised for food-and feed use in the EU. However, it is under suspicion of posing significant health risks and is currently under review by the European Food Safety Authority, after Professor Seralini, a French scientist, published a study which demonstrates that laboratory rats, fed with
a genetically engineered (GE) maize MON 863, have shown signs of toxicity in kidney and liver. Seralini, G-E, Cellier, D. & Spiroux de Vendomois, J. 2007. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Published in: "Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology".
[4] See CRIIGEN press release at http://www.criigen.org/cp_march2007.pdf and video of related press conference at http://www.criigen.org
[5] New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity, Journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Publisher Springer New York.
ISSN 0090-4341 (Print) 1432-0703 (Online). DOI 10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5. By Gilles-Eric Seralini [1] [ii] , Dominique Cellier [i], [iii], and Joel Spiroux de Vendomois [i].
GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007
[i] Committee for Independent Information and Research on Genetic Engineering
CRIIGEN, Paris, France
[ii] Laboratory of Biochemistry, Institute of Biology, University of Caen, Caen, France
[iii] Laboratory LITIS, University of Rouen, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France
Received: 18 July 2006 Accepted: 20 November 2006 Published online: 13 March 2007 at
http://www.agbios.com/docroot/decdocs/05-184-001.pdf
Abstract:
Health risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated for food or
feed is under debate throughout the world, and very little data have been published on
mid- or long-term toxicological studies with mammals. One of these studies performed
under the responsibility of Monsanto Company with a transgenic corn MON863 has been
subjected to questions from regulatory reviewers in Europe, where it was finally approved
in 2005. This necessitated a new assessment of kidney pathological findings, and the
results remained controversial. An Appeal Court action in Germany (Münster) allowed
public access in June 2005 to all the crude data from this 90-day rat-feeding study. We
independently re-analyzed these data. Appropriate statistics were added, such as a
multivariate analysis of the growth curves, and for biochemical parameters comparisons
between GMO-treated rats and the controls fed with an equivalent normal diet, and
separately with six reference diets with different compositions. We observed that after
the consumption of MON863, rats showed slight but dose-related significant variations in
growth for both sexes, resulting in 3.3% decrease in weight for males and 3.7% increase
for females. Chemistry measurements reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity, marked also
by differential sensitivities in males and females. Triglycerides increased by 2440% in
females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose 33%, respectively); urine
phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 3135% (week 14, dose 33%)
for the most important results significantly linked to the treatment in comparison to
seven diets tested. Longer experiments are essential in order to indicate the real nature
and extent of the possible pathology; with the present data it cannot be concluded that
GM corn MON863 is a safe product.
[6] “EFSA to review Monsanto maize concerns”, FoodNavigator.com, 15 March 2007.
See also “EFSA’s GM maize assessment to take several weeks”, FoodNavigator.com, 26 March 2007.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was publicly discredited in April 2006 when the EC agreed a proposal by EU Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou and EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, to overhaul EFSA’s authorisation procedures for placing GM products on EU markets. Kyprianou and Dimas criticised EFSA for routinely approving GM foods based on safety claims
made by the agri-biotech companies they are supposed to regulate, for refusing to consider independent scientific evidence on GMO risks, and for ignoring the views of the majority of EU member states which are opposed to GM food and farming. The EFSA is now legally required to take into account the opinions of member states, and to conduct independent research on the short- and long-term health and environmental risks of GM food and farming. Prior EFSA opinions on the safety of GM foods have no credibility. But the latest reports in May 2007 suggest that the reform procedure has been a failure.
[7] EU food labelling regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003:
• Art 15 (1.) c states that feed (and its components) produced from GMOs fall into the scope of the regulation. It is irrelevant whether the component or the feed actually contains any modified DNA. This so-called application principle replaces the formerly applicable detection principle. It
goes for feed just as much as for food (Art. 12).
• Art 24 regulates the labelling requirements and states clearly that material according to Art 15 falls under its scope. Art. 24 (2.) stipulates the conditions when material must be labelled as
GMO: Whenever there is any presence above 0.9% with the exception of material that is below
0.9% and "provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable."
See also “Labelling of GMO in Feedstuffs: Remarks Regarding a Recent Report by the EU Commission”.
By Jochen Koester, Director, IMCOPA (Europe) SA; published in Feed Magazine, March 2007; available for download at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/briefing/FeedMag_GMO_Labelling.pdf
GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007
[8] See photographs and press release at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac
[9] http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/new-illegal-gmo-found-in-us-sh
[10] Herculex GE insect resistant maize (59122) is genetically engineered to resist the corn rootworm.
The fact that they are in animal feed being imported into the EU raises food and feed safety issues. Although European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently gave an opinion on this maize saying it was “unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and animal health”, this is not a good indicator for the safety of Herculex maize. The confidence in EFSA’s GMO opinions has been undermined by a series of incidents in which EFSA has ignored scientific evidence (including evidence by EU member states)
pointing at negative effects (such as signs of toxicity) of GMOs on test animals.
Studies on test animals with Herculex maize show several adverse effects such as:
• statistically significant decreases in absolute reticulocyte count
• increases in mean corpuscular haemoglobin and mean corpuscular haemoglobin
concentration [*]
The findings in the blood parameters in the 90 day feeding trial are of particular importance
because these effects are noticed after only a short time. They could give an indication of toxicity in the longer term. This is similar to concerns expressed with MON863. However, EFSA simply
dismiss all these differences (as they did with MON863) saying results are within historical or
literature ranges or simply that they are “unlikely to be of any biological significance”.
(*) EFSA 2007. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on an
application (Reference EFSA-GMO-NL-2005-12) for the placing on the market of insectresistant genetically modified maize 59122, for food and feed uses, import and
processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
and Mycogen Seeds, c/o Dow Agrosciences LLC. (Question No EFSA-Q-2005-045) Opinion
adopted on 23 March 2007. The EFSA Journal (2007) 470, 1-25
[11] http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI35.pdf
[12] “Brussels urges the Netherlands to trace down bad maize”, ANP, 1 May 2007.
[13] “Netherlands refuses GM corn shipment from US”, Agence France-Presse, 9 May 2007.
“Illegal genetically engineered maize let loose in Europe - Dutch authorities order partial recall”,
Greenpeace press release, 9 May 2007.
“EC slammed for ‘complete breakdown of GM testing and labelling scheme”, press notice from GM Free Cymru, 1 May 2007.
[14] Note sent to GM-free Ireland by Martin Heffernan of the Irish Department of Agriculture
press office (corporate affairs division).
[15] “Statement on unauthorised GM event in maize”, Irish Department of Agriculture press
release, 18 May 2007.
[16] GM free Ireland requested copies of these lab certificates on 15 May, but had not yet
received them as of 22 May. These certificates will be posted on the GM-free Ireland website at
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/packrac as soon as they become available.
Note the reference to Bt10 – this is another illegal variety, 2,546 tonnes of which were landed at Greenore Port in Co. Louth in May 2005. That shipment of Bt10 was mislabelled as Bt11 – a
variety which was included in the Pakrac’s contaminated cargo. For details see
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/scandal .
[17] Department of Agriculture “Response to the questions raised by Mr O Callaghan”, sent to
GM-free Ireland on 18 May.
[18] Dáil statement by Minister for Agriculture and Food Mary Coughlan, [40579/06] in response
to a question by Mr. Boyle, TD:
GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007
Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if her attention has been drawn to the
volume of genetically modified produce and seeds imported here; and if she will make a
statement on the matter. [40579/06]
Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan):
“My Department has responsibility for the regulation of animal feed and seeds
containing GMOs. Following the coming into force, in April 2004, of EU Regulation
(EC) 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed and Regulation (EC)
1830/2003 on the labelling and traceability of GM products, all GM produce
consisting of or containing GM material in excess of 0.9% must be appropriately
labelled. This affords competent authorities the opportunity to accurately
establish the level of GM imports into the community.
Since April 2004 all feed imports have been subjected to inspection for accuracy
of GM labelling and very high levels of compliance have been detected. The level
of GM feed imported into Ireland in 2005 was as follows:
GM maize: 464,000t (95% of total imports)
GM Soya: 204,000t (95% of total imports)
GM Rapeseed: 4,300t (3% of total imports)
GM cottonseed: none out of a total of 11,000t
In the case of GM seeds the Commission are still examining proposals relating to
labelling thresholds. In the interim a voluntary system, involving the majority of
Member States including Ireland, was established whereby imports of certain at
risk seeds such as maize, fodder beet, oil seed rape and soya bean seed must be
accompanied by a laboratory certificate showing the levels of GM in any seed to
be below identified thresholds of 0.3% and 0.5% depending on the crop. All
certificates received indicated full compliance with these thresholds.”
See also “Sargent slams Coughlan's irresponsible approach to GMOs”, Irish Green Party press release, 1
December 2006.
[19] Personal communication from Mr. Hyde by phone to Michael O’Callaghan of GM-free Ireland, around
28 March 2007
[20] ibid.
[21] In January 2005, Greenpeace published a detailed report “No Market for GM-labelled food in Europe”, showing that the EU market for GM labelled food products is virtually closed. Europe's top 30
retailers and top 30 food & drink producers have policies and non-GM commitments which reveal a massive international food industry rejection of GM ingredients. This cuts across the industry from food
and drink manufacturers to retailers, and includes everything from snacks and ready meals to pet food and beer. The combined total food and drink sales of the 49 companies with a stated non-GM policy in their main market or throughout the EU (27 retailers and 22 food and drink producers) amounts to € 646
billion, more than 60% of the total € 1,069 billion European food and drink sales. Irish food companies doing business internationally need to implement a non-GM policy without delay. The report can be downloaded here as a large 2MB pdf file:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/NoMarketForGMFood.pdf
[22] In Switzerland, Migros and Coop systematically ban all GM animal feed in their supermarket brands.
In the UK (Tesco, Sainsburys, Marks & Spencer and Budgen Stores), in France (Carrefour, Cora, Auchan and Monoprix), and in Italy (Coop Italia) all have their own quality labels for meat and dairy produce from livestock fed a certified GM-free diet. Several Italian and French PDOs for cheese are now looking for supplies of GM-free animal feed. In Austria and the Netherlands, the same applies to milk and beef.
In the UK, standard poultry sold in supermarkets has a label certifying GM-free feed.
[23] Teagasc's Information Centre for Genetically Modified (GM) Crops in Ireland has launched a web site at http://www.gmoinfo.ie whose stated purpose is "to examine the possible economical and environmental impact of GM crops" and "to present this research in an impartial format to support the reader's understanding of the potential issues associated with GM crop cultivation".
For its first few years of operation, this tax-payer supported Teagasc website read like it was written by the biotech industry. It completely failed to mention any of the problems caused by the release of GM seeds and crops. These include the fact that any food carrying a GM label is refused by over 70% of EU GM CONTAMINATION SCANDAL • GM-FREE IRELAND PRESS RELEASE • 23 MAY 2007 consumers; that the commercial cultivation of GMO seeds and crops is banned in all or part of 22 EU member states; that GM crop contamination incidents have been reported in 40 countries; the scientific evidence of deaths and disease attributable to GM food ingredients in laboratory animals, livestock and the human population; the environmental risks including loss of biodiversity and superweeds; mandatory GM labelling; consequent loss of market share; crop patent royalties, cross-contamination and patent infringement lawsuits, the expropriation of farmers crops by giant agri-biotech corporate patent owners
under the WTO's Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement and related European and Irish patent laws; and the insurance industry’s refusal to provide cover against GM risks.
Following heavy criticism from GM-free Ireland, Teagasc has replace the web site’s content with a notice saying “the website is currently under construction.”
[24] “GM-free island could cost €40m a year”, Irish Examiner, 3 May 2007.
[25] See note 22 above.
[26] This private stakeholders meeting is by invitation only. To facilitate free and open discussion, the proceedings will be held under the Chatham House Rule (participants may share information received providing speaker’s identities and affiliations remain confidential). If you would like to submit a request for invitation, please contact Michael O’Callaghan at GM-free Ireland on +353 (0)404 43885 or by email
to mail@gmfreeireland.org
Details of the briefing on the heatlh risks of GM feed and food at the European Parliament Office in Dublin on 15 June will be posted on the GM-free Ireland web site at http://www.gmfreeireland.org
Saturday, 19 May 2007
ORGANIC ATTACK! - INTRODUCTION
ORGANIC ATTACK: INTRODUCTION
While the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations reports numerous environmental and health benefits from organic farming practices, including reduced levels of contaminants in foods, a whole series of press articles and radio and TV programmes around the world have been reporting the exact opposite: that organic agriculture is actually more risky than industrial agriculture. The items in the column below show how these reports are part of an orchestrated campaign of disinformation involving industry-backed proponents of GM and how they are grounded in bogus research and a series of false claims.
'Follow the money' behind critics of organic foods Grand Forks Herald
Organic attack in Italy - storm in a pesto jar!
The circulation of bogus research evidence critical of organic farming hasn't been a phenomenon restricted to popular journalism. There has been a concerted campaign of disinformation around the world with GM proponents always to the fore.
In the UK senior academics have been involved in raising concerns about the safety of organic food (eg Ben Miflin, former head of the Institute of Arable Crops Research, Prof Alan Gray of the Institute of Terrestial Ecology and formerly head of ACRE, Prof John Hillman director of the Scottish Crop Research Institute). Information critical of organic agriculture has also been published in a booklet promoting GM food from the Food and Drink Federation.
Such attacks have even appeared in articles in reputable science journals. For example, in MUCH FOOD, MANY PROBLEMS (Nature 402, 231 [1999] - 18/11/99) by Prof Anthony Trewavas of the Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology at the University of Edinburgh, there are repeated claims of substantial problems. Yet the trail of evidence for such claims often leads back to Dennis Avery, the man at the heart of the disinformation campaign on organics.
The pieces opposite not only explain the bogus nature of the claims being made but point to those, many linked directly or indirectly to a rightwing network and a loose coalition of 'think-tanks' supported by agribiz and the biotech corporations, who have been supporting the disinformation campaign.
What is revealing in all this, is the way in which senior academics have apparently been happy to join in the disinformation process, thus lending it credibility, by repeating and promoting such views without serious critical scrutiny of the evidence on which they are based. This once again points to the price we pay for science having become so industrially aligned that it is more preoccupied with corporate interests than with serving the public good. For more on this see: Prof Bullsh*t
More organic attacks in UK press
John Vidal, GUARDIAN (London), Tuesday May 16, 2000
The Daily Mail has been doing some good muckraking. Yesterday, it led its front page with a nine-month-old scientific report suggesting that lettuces and sprouts grown to organic standards with the help of farmyard manure had 100 times more E coli cells than conventionally grown ones. Shock. Was not E coli responsible for all those deaths in Lanarkshire? "The findings will alarm millions who switched to organic foods following the BSE crisis and concern over the safety of GM foods," said the Mail.
But should it? Is organic farming inherently more risky than conventional farming, as a stream of articles and TV programmes in the past six months on both sides of the Atlantic have suggested? Unhappily for the Mail, the answer is no. E coli is one of the commonest microbiological organisms on the planet. It is everywhere. On your coffee cup, your pencil, your hands, in everybody's stomach.
The Daily Mail report glossed over the fact that the E coli found in the organically grown lettuces was totally harmless and indeed rather welcome. Without E coli and other micro organisms our immune system would be in tatters. Indeed, it would have been far more surprising if the Atlanta veggies did not show higher numbers of E coli cells. At least they were being grown in biologically alive land.
But one strain of E coli - 0157 - can indeed be virulent and deadly, and the Mail was quick to report that Tesco had recently withdrawn all its organic mushrooms after a routine check by environmental health officers found one with 0157. But not with the deadly strain known as 0157:H7. It went on to say that the strain found in the Tesco mushroom was completely harmless.
So where are all these organic scare stories coming from? What's new about muck? As the Soil Association, which sets UK organic standards points out, animal manure has been used for thousands of years as an essential component to maintain the organic matter content, biological activity, fertility and structural stability of agricultural soils. Moreover, conventional UK farmers use about 80m tonnes of it a year as a fertiliser. Just 9,000 tonnes goes on organic land and crops. So why the attacks on organic foods and not conventional ones?
Enter the highly charged and politically motivated industry of environmental "contrarianism". It questions accepted eco "truisms" which suggest that global warming, holes in the ozone layer, large dams, intensive farming, nuclear power and GM foods are major problems. However, it frequently uses extremely selective scientific studies, funded by industries with strong vested interests in keeping the status quo, to rubbish governments and environmentalists. They are, variously, "negative", "against progress", "luddite", "making the poor poorer" and "peddling bad science".
THE GODFATHERS: who's behind organicised crime? Excerpt from 'Organicised crime: The backlash against organic food has begun. But who is behind it?', Andy Rowell's report on how a loose network of rightwing think-tanks, supported by agribiz and the biotech corporations, have worked together with GM-supporting scientists to slander organic food.
Dennis Avery: Big Daddy of the E.co-lie! Reports on the bogus research with which Dennis Avery has originated much of the anti-organic propaganda in recent circulation, and how his work is supported by Monsanto, DuPont, Novartis, ConAgra, DowElanco and others who profit from the sale of products prohibited in organic production.
John Stossel slanders organic farming Reports on how ABC News correspondent John Stossel misled viewers in a report on "20/20" implying organic food was dangerous. Includes articles from The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle and The Nation.
Prof Trewavas requires a health warning Reports on the media-war waged against organics by a scientist renowned for his extreme, unsupported and unfounded assertions. Includes an article with detailed criticism of a Trewavas' piece in Nature.
Lord Haskins: merchant of doom According to Blair advisor Lord Haskins organic food is not only risky but if organic farming were widely adopted it would lead to mass starvation!
Prof Hillman attacked for promoting bogus claims How Professor John Hillman, director of the Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI) used the SCRI's annual report and the media to promote bogus smears against organic farming. Professor Hillman is on the Board of Directors of the BioIndustry Association, whose tagline is "Encouraging and Promoting the Biotechnology Sector of the UK Economy".
Sir John Krebbs slammed over organic food attacks How Sir John Krebs and his supporters are using the UK Food Standards Agency to promote the interests of the biotechnology industry.
Anti-Organic Industry Groups Smear for Profit Exposing the industry groups behind 'Nomorescares.com' and its anti-organic report 'Organic Industry Groups Spread Fear for Profit'
Rightwing clique behind organic attacks
Rebutting the myths: the ‘Couterblast’ programme on BBC 2 TV A Soil Association response to the propaganda attack of a Big Tobacco funded rightwing clique
United Nations FAO report exposes anti-organic propaganda A UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report concludes organic practices actually reduce e-coli infection that causes food poisoning (the exact opposite of GM proponents' bogus claims) and they also reduce the levels of contaminants in foods. Among the FAO's other conclusions:
Organic agriculture contributes to cleaner drinking water and to higher weed, insect and bird diversity
Organic farming enhances genetic biodiversity and helps recover indigenous crop varieties
Organically produced foods have lower levels of pesticide and veterinary drug residues
Organic milk is less contaminated
Organic farming is good for sustainable agriculture
The spate of recent "organic scare" stories probably started with Denis T Avery, Director of Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, a rich and powerful US free-market, pro-globalisation think tank funded, amongst others, by chemical companies, agribusiness and biotech companies - all of whom have taken a battering in the global GM furore.
In 1998, Avery published "The Hidden Dangers in Organic Food" in American Outlook, a quarterly Hudson Institute publication. It began: "According to recent data compiled by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), people who eat organic and 'natural' foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E coli bacteria (0157:H7)."
The trouble was, the CDC denied ever having done the studies. But the Hudson and its British counterparts such as the European Science and Environment Forum, and the Institute of Economic Affairs, have been peddling variations of the story to shock-hungry journalists, notably at C4, Living Marxism, a BBC Counterblast programme, and even the Wall Street Journal.
No one denies that farmyard manure carries dangerous pathogens. But not even the most naive vegetarian would suggest that you should ignore fundamental rules of hygiene like washing fruit and vegetables before eating them, or cooking meat thoroughly.
While the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations reports numerous environmental and health benefits from organic farming practices, including reduced levels of contaminants in foods, a whole series of press articles and radio and TV programmes around the world have been reporting the exact opposite: that organic agriculture is actually more risky than industrial agriculture. The items in the column below show how these reports are part of an orchestrated campaign of disinformation involving industry-backed proponents of GM and how they are grounded in bogus research and a series of false claims.
'Follow the money' behind critics of organic foods Grand Forks Herald
Organic attack in Italy - storm in a pesto jar!
The circulation of bogus research evidence critical of organic farming hasn't been a phenomenon restricted to popular journalism. There has been a concerted campaign of disinformation around the world with GM proponents always to the fore.
In the UK senior academics have been involved in raising concerns about the safety of organic food (eg Ben Miflin, former head of the Institute of Arable Crops Research, Prof Alan Gray of the Institute of Terrestial Ecology and formerly head of ACRE, Prof John Hillman director of the Scottish Crop Research Institute). Information critical of organic agriculture has also been published in a booklet promoting GM food from the Food and Drink Federation.
Such attacks have even appeared in articles in reputable science journals. For example, in MUCH FOOD, MANY PROBLEMS (Nature 402, 231 [1999] - 18/11/99) by Prof Anthony Trewavas of the Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology at the University of Edinburgh, there are repeated claims of substantial problems. Yet the trail of evidence for such claims often leads back to Dennis Avery, the man at the heart of the disinformation campaign on organics.
The pieces opposite not only explain the bogus nature of the claims being made but point to those, many linked directly or indirectly to a rightwing network and a loose coalition of 'think-tanks' supported by agribiz and the biotech corporations, who have been supporting the disinformation campaign.
What is revealing in all this, is the way in which senior academics have apparently been happy to join in the disinformation process, thus lending it credibility, by repeating and promoting such views without serious critical scrutiny of the evidence on which they are based. This once again points to the price we pay for science having become so industrially aligned that it is more preoccupied with corporate interests than with serving the public good. For more on this see: Prof Bullsh*t
More organic attacks in UK press
John Vidal, GUARDIAN (London), Tuesday May 16, 2000
The Daily Mail has been doing some good muckraking. Yesterday, it led its front page with a nine-month-old scientific report suggesting that lettuces and sprouts grown to organic standards with the help of farmyard manure had 100 times more E coli cells than conventionally grown ones. Shock. Was not E coli responsible for all those deaths in Lanarkshire? "The findings will alarm millions who switched to organic foods following the BSE crisis and concern over the safety of GM foods," said the Mail.
But should it? Is organic farming inherently more risky than conventional farming, as a stream of articles and TV programmes in the past six months on both sides of the Atlantic have suggested? Unhappily for the Mail, the answer is no. E coli is one of the commonest microbiological organisms on the planet. It is everywhere. On your coffee cup, your pencil, your hands, in everybody's stomach.
The Daily Mail report glossed over the fact that the E coli found in the organically grown lettuces was totally harmless and indeed rather welcome. Without E coli and other micro organisms our immune system would be in tatters. Indeed, it would have been far more surprising if the Atlanta veggies did not show higher numbers of E coli cells. At least they were being grown in biologically alive land.
But one strain of E coli - 0157 - can indeed be virulent and deadly, and the Mail was quick to report that Tesco had recently withdrawn all its organic mushrooms after a routine check by environmental health officers found one with 0157. But not with the deadly strain known as 0157:H7. It went on to say that the strain found in the Tesco mushroom was completely harmless.
So where are all these organic scare stories coming from? What's new about muck? As the Soil Association, which sets UK organic standards points out, animal manure has been used for thousands of years as an essential component to maintain the organic matter content, biological activity, fertility and structural stability of agricultural soils. Moreover, conventional UK farmers use about 80m tonnes of it a year as a fertiliser. Just 9,000 tonnes goes on organic land and crops. So why the attacks on organic foods and not conventional ones?
Enter the highly charged and politically motivated industry of environmental "contrarianism". It questions accepted eco "truisms" which suggest that global warming, holes in the ozone layer, large dams, intensive farming, nuclear power and GM foods are major problems. However, it frequently uses extremely selective scientific studies, funded by industries with strong vested interests in keeping the status quo, to rubbish governments and environmentalists. They are, variously, "negative", "against progress", "luddite", "making the poor poorer" and "peddling bad science".
THE GODFATHERS: who's behind organicised crime? Excerpt from 'Organicised crime: The backlash against organic food has begun. But who is behind it?', Andy Rowell's report on how a loose network of rightwing think-tanks, supported by agribiz and the biotech corporations, have worked together with GM-supporting scientists to slander organic food.
Dennis Avery: Big Daddy of the E.co-lie! Reports on the bogus research with which Dennis Avery has originated much of the anti-organic propaganda in recent circulation, and how his work is supported by Monsanto, DuPont, Novartis, ConAgra, DowElanco and others who profit from the sale of products prohibited in organic production.
John Stossel slanders organic farming Reports on how ABC News correspondent John Stossel misled viewers in a report on "20/20" implying organic food was dangerous. Includes articles from The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle and The Nation.
Prof Trewavas requires a health warning Reports on the media-war waged against organics by a scientist renowned for his extreme, unsupported and unfounded assertions. Includes an article with detailed criticism of a Trewavas' piece in Nature.
Lord Haskins: merchant of doom According to Blair advisor Lord Haskins organic food is not only risky but if organic farming were widely adopted it would lead to mass starvation!
Prof Hillman attacked for promoting bogus claims How Professor John Hillman, director of the Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI) used the SCRI's annual report and the media to promote bogus smears against organic farming. Professor Hillman is on the Board of Directors of the BioIndustry Association, whose tagline is "Encouraging and Promoting the Biotechnology Sector of the UK Economy".
Sir John Krebbs slammed over organic food attacks How Sir John Krebs and his supporters are using the UK Food Standards Agency to promote the interests of the biotechnology industry.
Anti-Organic Industry Groups Smear for Profit Exposing the industry groups behind 'Nomorescares.com' and its anti-organic report 'Organic Industry Groups Spread Fear for Profit'
Rightwing clique behind organic attacks
Rebutting the myths: the ‘Couterblast’ programme on BBC 2 TV A Soil Association response to the propaganda attack of a Big Tobacco funded rightwing clique
United Nations FAO report exposes anti-organic propaganda A UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report concludes organic practices actually reduce e-coli infection that causes food poisoning (the exact opposite of GM proponents' bogus claims) and they also reduce the levels of contaminants in foods. Among the FAO's other conclusions:
Organic agriculture contributes to cleaner drinking water and to higher weed, insect and bird diversity
Organic farming enhances genetic biodiversity and helps recover indigenous crop varieties
Organically produced foods have lower levels of pesticide and veterinary drug residues
Organic milk is less contaminated
Organic farming is good for sustainable agriculture
The spate of recent "organic scare" stories probably started with Denis T Avery, Director of Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, a rich and powerful US free-market, pro-globalisation think tank funded, amongst others, by chemical companies, agribusiness and biotech companies - all of whom have taken a battering in the global GM furore.
In 1998, Avery published "The Hidden Dangers in Organic Food" in American Outlook, a quarterly Hudson Institute publication. It began: "According to recent data compiled by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), people who eat organic and 'natural' foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E coli bacteria (0157:H7)."
The trouble was, the CDC denied ever having done the studies. But the Hudson and its British counterparts such as the European Science and Environment Forum, and the Institute of Economic Affairs, have been peddling variations of the story to shock-hungry journalists, notably at C4, Living Marxism, a BBC Counterblast programme, and even the Wall Street Journal.
No one denies that farmyard manure carries dangerous pathogens. But not even the most naive vegetarian would suggest that you should ignore fundamental rules of hygiene like washing fruit and vegetables before eating them, or cooking meat thoroughly.
The Biotech Brigade
Extracted from GMWATCH.ORG
WHO'S WHO in the fight to force-feed us GMOs:
Some of the players PR OPERATORS
Bivings Group
Rick Berman
Jay Byrne
Mike Craven
Foresight Communications
FAKE PERSUADERS
Center For Foodand Agricultural Research
Andura Smetacek
Mary Murphy
Paul Ohm
THIRD WORLD LOBBYISTS
TJ Buthelezi
Florence Wambugu
AfricaBio
Chengal Reddy
Muffy Koch
Kisan CC
Liberty Institute
CS Prakash
ISAAA
M.S. Swaminathan
African Agricultural Technology Foundation
PRO-GM CAMPAIGNERS
CS Prakash
Doug Powell
Dennis T. Avery
Derek Burke
Andrew Apel
Mike Wilson
Patrick Moore
Peter Lachmann
Philip Stott
Dean Kleckner
Chris Leaver
LOBBY GROUPS
Sense About Science
Scientific Alliance
BIO
CropGen
EuropaBio
Royal Society
Life Sciences Network
LIVING MARXISM LINKS
Fiona Fox
Tracey Brown
Thomas Deichmann
Living Marxism
ULTRA-RIGHT
European Science and Environment Forum
Defense of Free Enterpise
CORECEI
Institute of Public Affairs
Steve ('The Junkman') Milloy
International Policy Network
AEI
WEB ATTACKERS
CFFAR.org
AgBioWorld
Foodsecurity.net
Consumer Freedom
ActivistCash.com
StopLabelingLies
NoMoreFears.com
CORPORATE SCIENCE
Public Research and Regulation foundation
CSIRO
IRRI
Food Safety Network
BBSRC
CGIAR
John Innes Centre
POLITICIANS, REGULATORS, BUREAUCRATS
Lord Sainsbury
Sir John Krebs
Scottish Enterprise
George Paterson
Sue Meek
Muffy Koch
GM FARMING SUPPORTERS
Truth about Trade
National Center for Food and Agriculture PolicyPG Economics
American Soybean Association (ASA)
National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)
WHO'S WHO in the fight to force-feed us GMOs:
Some of the players PR OPERATORS
Bivings Group
Rick Berman
Jay Byrne
Mike Craven
Foresight Communications
FAKE PERSUADERS
Center For Foodand Agricultural Research
Andura Smetacek
Mary Murphy
Paul Ohm
THIRD WORLD LOBBYISTS
TJ Buthelezi
Florence Wambugu
AfricaBio
Chengal Reddy
Muffy Koch
Kisan CC
Liberty Institute
CS Prakash
ISAAA
M.S. Swaminathan
African Agricultural Technology Foundation
PRO-GM CAMPAIGNERS
CS Prakash
Doug Powell
Dennis T. Avery
Derek Burke
Andrew Apel
Mike Wilson
Patrick Moore
Peter Lachmann
Philip Stott
Dean Kleckner
Chris Leaver
LOBBY GROUPS
Sense About Science
Scientific Alliance
BIO
CropGen
EuropaBio
Royal Society
Life Sciences Network
LIVING MARXISM LINKS
Fiona Fox
Tracey Brown
Thomas Deichmann
Living Marxism
ULTRA-RIGHT
European Science and Environment Forum
Defense of Free Enterpise
CORECEI
Institute of Public Affairs
Steve ('The Junkman') Milloy
International Policy Network
AEI
WEB ATTACKERS
CFFAR.org
AgBioWorld
Foodsecurity.net
Consumer Freedom
ActivistCash.com
StopLabelingLies
NoMoreFears.com
CORPORATE SCIENCE
Public Research and Regulation foundation
CSIRO
IRRI
Food Safety Network
BBSRC
CGIAR
John Innes Centre
POLITICIANS, REGULATORS, BUREAUCRATS
Lord Sainsbury
Sir John Krebs
Scottish Enterprise
George Paterson
Sue Meek
Muffy Koch
GM FARMING SUPPORTERS
Truth about Trade
National Center for Food and Agriculture PolicyPG Economics
American Soybean Association (ASA)
National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)
Research shows huge variation in Bt toxin in GM maize (MON810) (16/5/2007)
EXTRACTS: The variation [in the Bt toxin] found on the same field on the same day was considerable, and could differ by a factor of as much as 100. This is in agreement with the results of a new study published in April 2007...
All interested laboratories need unrestricted access to relevant sample material. The authorities need to define standardised and sufficiently reliable methods for determining Bt concentrations in plants for risk assessment studies and for post-market monitoring.
Until the open questions regarding risk assessment, monitoring and product quality have been satisfactorily answered, the commercial cultivation of MON810 needs to be stopped, because the legal basis for approving MON810 for cultivation has not been fulfilled.
---
How much Bt toxin do genetically engineered MON810 maize plants actually produce?
Antje Lorch and Christoph Then
via Genet, 11 May 2007
http://www.gene.ch/genet/2007/May/msg00060.html
Original as a pdf file: http://www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/user_upload/themen/gentechnik/greenpeace_bt_maize_engl.pdf
Executive Summary
In the growing season 2006, Greenpeace took leaf samples of commercially cultivated MON810 maize plants in Germany and Spain to determine the Bt toxin (Cry1Ab) concentration. A total of 619 samples from 12 fields were analysed using ELISA tests.
MON810 maize is genetically engineered to produce a modified insecticide (Cry1Ab) that naturally occurs in the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The production of this toxin is supposed to protect the maize plants from European corn borer larvae (ECB, Ostrinia nubilalis).
This Greenpeace study shows a surprising pattern of plants that contained only very low Bt toxin levels. However, high levels could be observed in some plants. The variation found on the same field on the same day was considerable, and could differ by a factor of as much as 100. This is in agreement with the results of a new study published in April 2007 that concludes that "the monitoring of Cry1Ab expression [of MON810 plants] showed that the Cry1Ab concentrations varied strongly between different plant individuals."
In total, the Bt concentrations were much lower than those available from Monsanto for cultivation approval in the US and the EU, with a arithmetic mean of 9.35 ?g Bt/ g fresh weight (fw; standard deviation 1.03; range 7.93-10.34 ?g Bt/g fw). Here, our data also corroborate the results of Nguyen and Jehle (2007), who also found lower Bt concentrations (with means between 2.4 and 6.4 ?g Bt/g fw) than those known from the literature. The data recorded by Greenpeace, however, deviate even more from the data published so far. The means ranged from 0.5 to 2.2 ?g Bt/g fw, while Bt concentrations ranged from a minimum of no or 0.1 ?g Bt/g fw to concentrations of about 14.8 ?g Bt/g fw.
The results presented here raise far-reaching questions about the safety and the technical quality of the MON810 plants as well as some fundamental methodological questions.
1. The variation of Bt concentrations
Since the Bt concentration on the field can vary greatly even between neighbouring plants, the MON810 plants do not appear to be sufficiently stable in their biological traits. The reasons for the high variation in Bt contents could be related to genetic or environmental factors (e.g. weather or soil conditions), or both. Nguyen & Jehle (2007) not only found high variation between plants on a field, but also statistically significant differences between different locations in Germany. Since the reasons for such differences and the range of variation cannot be identified, the commercial cultivation of the crops should be stopped to avoid interactions with the environment that could lead to adverse and unpredictable effects.
To investigate these questions further, studies should be conducted under contained conditions (such as glasshouse experiments) to study the environmental effects (e.g. drought, moisture, temperature, soil, nutrients) on the plants. Next to no studies of this type have yet been published.
2. The risk assessment of the plants
Risk assessment studies with non-target organisms or feeding studies in which the actual Bt concentration has not been determined appear to be of little use. Studies in which the toxin concentration is unknown cannot be used to give approval for the commercial growing of these plants.
3. The actual Bt toxin concentrations
If the Bt toxin in GE Bt plants were more effective in considerably lower concentrations than previously described, this would not be identical with the naturally occurring Bt toxin. This would annul a central aspect of the EU cultivation approval, which is based on the assumption that the Bt toxin in plants could in general be equated with the natural Bt protein from soil bacteria.
However, if the toxin is not effective in such low concentrations as we have recorded, then serious concerns about the effectiveness of the plants in controlling ECB larvae need to be raised.
Additional problems would then also concern insect resistance management, as resistance development could be accelerated by sub-lethal toxin doses.
4. The methods for determining Bt concentrations
The methods used by Monsanto to determine the Bt concentration of their original MON810 plants are not available from the publicly available documents. In order to make a reliable comparison of new data with Monsanto's data, it is essential that the test protocols as well as the original data are published. All interested laboratories need unrestricted access to relevant sample material. The authorities need to define standardised and sufficiently reliable methods for determining Bt concentrations in plants for risk assessment studies and for post-market monitoring.
Until the open questions regarding risk assessment, monitoring and product quality have been satisfactorily answered, the commercial cultivation of MON810 needs to be stopped, because the legal basis for approving MON810 for cultivation has not been fulfilled.
All interested laboratories need unrestricted access to relevant sample material. The authorities need to define standardised and sufficiently reliable methods for determining Bt concentrations in plants for risk assessment studies and for post-market monitoring.
Until the open questions regarding risk assessment, monitoring and product quality have been satisfactorily answered, the commercial cultivation of MON810 needs to be stopped, because the legal basis for approving MON810 for cultivation has not been fulfilled.
---
How much Bt toxin do genetically engineered MON810 maize plants actually produce?
Antje Lorch and Christoph Then
via Genet, 11 May 2007
http://www.gene.ch/genet/2007/May/msg00060.html
Original as a pdf file: http://www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/user_upload/themen/gentechnik/greenpeace_bt_maize_engl.pdf
Executive Summary
In the growing season 2006, Greenpeace took leaf samples of commercially cultivated MON810 maize plants in Germany and Spain to determine the Bt toxin (Cry1Ab) concentration. A total of 619 samples from 12 fields were analysed using ELISA tests.
MON810 maize is genetically engineered to produce a modified insecticide (Cry1Ab) that naturally occurs in the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The production of this toxin is supposed to protect the maize plants from European corn borer larvae (ECB, Ostrinia nubilalis).
This Greenpeace study shows a surprising pattern of plants that contained only very low Bt toxin levels. However, high levels could be observed in some plants. The variation found on the same field on the same day was considerable, and could differ by a factor of as much as 100. This is in agreement with the results of a new study published in April 2007 that concludes that "the monitoring of Cry1Ab expression [of MON810 plants] showed that the Cry1Ab concentrations varied strongly between different plant individuals."
In total, the Bt concentrations were much lower than those available from Monsanto for cultivation approval in the US and the EU, with a arithmetic mean of 9.35 ?g Bt/ g fresh weight (fw; standard deviation 1.03; range 7.93-10.34 ?g Bt/g fw). Here, our data also corroborate the results of Nguyen and Jehle (2007), who also found lower Bt concentrations (with means between 2.4 and 6.4 ?g Bt/g fw) than those known from the literature. The data recorded by Greenpeace, however, deviate even more from the data published so far. The means ranged from 0.5 to 2.2 ?g Bt/g fw, while Bt concentrations ranged from a minimum of no or 0.1 ?g Bt/g fw to concentrations of about 14.8 ?g Bt/g fw.
The results presented here raise far-reaching questions about the safety and the technical quality of the MON810 plants as well as some fundamental methodological questions.
1. The variation of Bt concentrations
Since the Bt concentration on the field can vary greatly even between neighbouring plants, the MON810 plants do not appear to be sufficiently stable in their biological traits. The reasons for the high variation in Bt contents could be related to genetic or environmental factors (e.g. weather or soil conditions), or both. Nguyen & Jehle (2007) not only found high variation between plants on a field, but also statistically significant differences between different locations in Germany. Since the reasons for such differences and the range of variation cannot be identified, the commercial cultivation of the crops should be stopped to avoid interactions with the environment that could lead to adverse and unpredictable effects.
To investigate these questions further, studies should be conducted under contained conditions (such as glasshouse experiments) to study the environmental effects (e.g. drought, moisture, temperature, soil, nutrients) on the plants. Next to no studies of this type have yet been published.
2. The risk assessment of the plants
Risk assessment studies with non-target organisms or feeding studies in which the actual Bt concentration has not been determined appear to be of little use. Studies in which the toxin concentration is unknown cannot be used to give approval for the commercial growing of these plants.
3. The actual Bt toxin concentrations
If the Bt toxin in GE Bt plants were more effective in considerably lower concentrations than previously described, this would not be identical with the naturally occurring Bt toxin. This would annul a central aspect of the EU cultivation approval, which is based on the assumption that the Bt toxin in plants could in general be equated with the natural Bt protein from soil bacteria.
However, if the toxin is not effective in such low concentrations as we have recorded, then serious concerns about the effectiveness of the plants in controlling ECB larvae need to be raised.
Additional problems would then also concern insect resistance management, as resistance development could be accelerated by sub-lethal toxin doses.
4. The methods for determining Bt concentrations
The methods used by Monsanto to determine the Bt concentration of their original MON810 plants are not available from the publicly available documents. In order to make a reliable comparison of new data with Monsanto's data, it is essential that the test protocols as well as the original data are published. All interested laboratories need unrestricted access to relevant sample material. The authorities need to define standardised and sufficiently reliable methods for determining Bt concentrations in plants for risk assessment studies and for post-market monitoring.
Until the open questions regarding risk assessment, monitoring and product quality have been satisfactorily answered, the commercial cultivation of MON810 needs to be stopped, because the legal basis for approving MON810 for cultivation has not been fulfilled.
Friday, 18 May 2007
Organic Food the Only Option for a Healthier You
Organic Food the Only Option for a Healthier You
By John Ruiz
Extracted from Christopher Wen
In our everyday life we are often in contact with lots of artificially created products and agents. Be it pollution in the air we breaths in, or the food we eat, we are always taking in chemicals into our body. And do you know that these manmade agents can potentially do lots of harm to our body? When we look around us, we see more and more people contracting cancer, more people having health problems, more people relying on vitamins and minerals products to maintain their fragile health. The main issue here is in fact due to the fact that we are harming our body again and again with too much usage of artificially created chemicals in our lives.
We may think that these chemical agents are in very small quantity, and would not cause too much problems if we do not take in too much, but over the years, the amount of toxic stored in our body can accumulate to a size that can cause serious illness such as cancer.
You know what, on the average each of us might be exposed to more than 50,000 chemical products in our lifetime. Billions of pesticides are used on our crops, and that by the time the vegetables reach our table, guess what, there could be more than 100 different kinds of chemicals in it. Not only that, in our vaccines, our cosmetics, our toothpaste, our household products, our water, even in the vitamins we take, chemical is everywhere. Some of the chemicals may not be harmful, but some are extremely harmful even if the amount is small. The mercury in your toothpaste may cause cancer after extended use! Believe it or not, even our table salt, white sugar, vinegar, all these can be produced artificially.
And the list continues to grow. Pretty scary right?
To ensure that we are on a right track to a healthier body, it is time we think about what are we eating and how we live. Are we eating too much synthetic food? Are we exposing our body to too much toxic pollutants in our daily life? You know what, the best way to create a healthier life is keep in touch with natural and organic food.
How do we define organic food? True organic food is natural food. They are made and cultivated under conditions without the usage of chemical agents. Benefits of organic food are plenty. Organic food means no chemical agents, no artificial coloring, no preservatives, and no additives. According to researchers, in reality more than 80% of cancer cases are related to toxic and chemicals, and it is only through reducing the amount of chemicals in our lives by going the organic way, then can we reduce the chances of us getting sick.
We cannot avoid not getting in touch with chemical agents in our life. But we can reduce it. By eating more natural food, our body is also better at purging the toxic residing in our body. In the long run, we can create a good balance in our body and therefore a healthier us. So what are you waiting for? Let us go natural, go green, and go organic for a healthier life.
By John Ruiz
Extracted from Christopher Wen
In our everyday life we are often in contact with lots of artificially created products and agents. Be it pollution in the air we breaths in, or the food we eat, we are always taking in chemicals into our body. And do you know that these manmade agents can potentially do lots of harm to our body? When we look around us, we see more and more people contracting cancer, more people having health problems, more people relying on vitamins and minerals products to maintain their fragile health. The main issue here is in fact due to the fact that we are harming our body again and again with too much usage of artificially created chemicals in our lives.
We may think that these chemical agents are in very small quantity, and would not cause too much problems if we do not take in too much, but over the years, the amount of toxic stored in our body can accumulate to a size that can cause serious illness such as cancer.
You know what, on the average each of us might be exposed to more than 50,000 chemical products in our lifetime. Billions of pesticides are used on our crops, and that by the time the vegetables reach our table, guess what, there could be more than 100 different kinds of chemicals in it. Not only that, in our vaccines, our cosmetics, our toothpaste, our household products, our water, even in the vitamins we take, chemical is everywhere. Some of the chemicals may not be harmful, but some are extremely harmful even if the amount is small. The mercury in your toothpaste may cause cancer after extended use! Believe it or not, even our table salt, white sugar, vinegar, all these can be produced artificially.
And the list continues to grow. Pretty scary right?
To ensure that we are on a right track to a healthier body, it is time we think about what are we eating and how we live. Are we eating too much synthetic food? Are we exposing our body to too much toxic pollutants in our daily life? You know what, the best way to create a healthier life is keep in touch with natural and organic food.
How do we define organic food? True organic food is natural food. They are made and cultivated under conditions without the usage of chemical agents. Benefits of organic food are plenty. Organic food means no chemical agents, no artificial coloring, no preservatives, and no additives. According to researchers, in reality more than 80% of cancer cases are related to toxic and chemicals, and it is only through reducing the amount of chemicals in our lives by going the organic way, then can we reduce the chances of us getting sick.
We cannot avoid not getting in touch with chemical agents in our life. But we can reduce it. By eating more natural food, our body is also better at purging the toxic residing in our body. In the long run, we can create a good balance in our body and therefore a healthier us. So what are you waiting for? Let us go natural, go green, and go organic for a healthier life.
Talk about the media being BIASED!!!!!!!!
Extracted from http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21399673-24331,00.html#
My Comments:
Anyone with half a brain can see what an unsubstantiated piece of journalism. I like the last sentence from the speech pathologist (they might have just as well got the opinion from a five year old), "I feel the normal stuff is just as good...... Firstly NON ORGANIC is not normal. Before the advent of chemical warfare on our crops food was NORMAL. If it is not ORGANIC then it is chemically enhanced !!!!!!
Refer to the following links (2 of many) for properly referenced articles:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=10587
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/12-27/health-benefits-of-organic-food-article.htm
_________________________
Costly organic foods no better
Claire Weaver
March 18, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Sunday Herald Sun
ORGANIC food has no nutritional benefit over regular products despite the common belief it is healthier, Australian scientists say.
Shoppers who buy more expensive organic food often believe they are getting nutritionally-superior products -- but experts warn there is no evidence to support the claim.
Research shows most fruit and vegetables on sale in Australia have the same levels of nutrients and no traces of pesticides, regardless of whether they are organic or not.
Jennie Brand-Miller, professor of molecular and microbiological sciences at the University of Sydney, warns many consumers are paying more because of mistaken beliefs.
"I think we need to get the message out there that non-organic produce is genuinely good quality," she said.
"We have got a lot to gain from eating fresh fruit and vegetables, so the best message is eat as much as you like.
" Organic produce is usually significantly more expensive than conventional foods -- sometimes double the price.
Consultant dietitian Shane Landon said Australian food standards were high, ensuring all produce was safe to eat.
"If people do want to pay a bit more to buy organic and have an orange that looks a bit funny, that's fine. But I'm not convinced it's healthier," he said.
A consumer would have to eat truckloads of non-organic food to accumulate any meaningful amount of pesticides or chemicals in their body, he said. Analysis shows some organic produce does contain residual pesticides.
Suggestions of high levels of hormones in chicken have been proven to be an urban myth, as oestrogen has been banned as an ingredient in chicken feed since the 1960s in Australia.
Advocates prefer to eat organic food because it is likely to have travelled a shorter distance from harvest to shop than its non-organic counterparts, therefore making it more environmentally friendly.
Prof Brand-Miller said there was some evidence that organic food produced without the use of pesticides and artificial chemicals may be kinder to the planet in the long-term.
But the only obvious short-term benefit was that organic fruit and vegetables tend to be smaller, which may mean they taste better as there is a correlation between size and flavour.
Labels such as "organic", "natural" and "hormone-free" can lull consumers into a false sense of security, Prof Brand-Miller said.
"It's all part of a social change. Women are in the workforce more and they are less responsible for their family's food needs.
"They feel a bit guilty and think they are not going to sacrifice their family's health just because they are working."
Erin Pearson, a speech pathologist, bought organic food in the past but didn't notice any difference.
"I feel the normal stuff is just as good and organic does tend to be more expensive," she said.
My Comments:
Anyone with half a brain can see what an unsubstantiated piece of journalism. I like the last sentence from the speech pathologist (they might have just as well got the opinion from a five year old), "I feel the normal stuff is just as good...... Firstly NON ORGANIC is not normal. Before the advent of chemical warfare on our crops food was NORMAL. If it is not ORGANIC then it is chemically enhanced !!!!!!
Refer to the following links (2 of many) for properly referenced articles:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=10587
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/12-27/health-benefits-of-organic-food-article.htm
_________________________
Costly organic foods no better
Claire Weaver
March 18, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Sunday Herald Sun
ORGANIC food has no nutritional benefit over regular products despite the common belief it is healthier, Australian scientists say.
Shoppers who buy more expensive organic food often believe they are getting nutritionally-superior products -- but experts warn there is no evidence to support the claim.
Research shows most fruit and vegetables on sale in Australia have the same levels of nutrients and no traces of pesticides, regardless of whether they are organic or not.
Jennie Brand-Miller, professor of molecular and microbiological sciences at the University of Sydney, warns many consumers are paying more because of mistaken beliefs.
"I think we need to get the message out there that non-organic produce is genuinely good quality," she said.
"We have got a lot to gain from eating fresh fruit and vegetables, so the best message is eat as much as you like.
" Organic produce is usually significantly more expensive than conventional foods -- sometimes double the price.
Consultant dietitian Shane Landon said Australian food standards were high, ensuring all produce was safe to eat.
"If people do want to pay a bit more to buy organic and have an orange that looks a bit funny, that's fine. But I'm not convinced it's healthier," he said.
A consumer would have to eat truckloads of non-organic food to accumulate any meaningful amount of pesticides or chemicals in their body, he said. Analysis shows some organic produce does contain residual pesticides.
Suggestions of high levels of hormones in chicken have been proven to be an urban myth, as oestrogen has been banned as an ingredient in chicken feed since the 1960s in Australia.
Advocates prefer to eat organic food because it is likely to have travelled a shorter distance from harvest to shop than its non-organic counterparts, therefore making it more environmentally friendly.
Prof Brand-Miller said there was some evidence that organic food produced without the use of pesticides and artificial chemicals may be kinder to the planet in the long-term.
But the only obvious short-term benefit was that organic fruit and vegetables tend to be smaller, which may mean they taste better as there is a correlation between size and flavour.
Labels such as "organic", "natural" and "hormone-free" can lull consumers into a false sense of security, Prof Brand-Miller said.
"It's all part of a social change. Women are in the workforce more and they are less responsible for their family's food needs.
"They feel a bit guilty and think they are not going to sacrifice their family's health just because they are working."
Erin Pearson, a speech pathologist, bought organic food in the past but didn't notice any difference.
"I feel the normal stuff is just as good and organic does tend to be more expensive," she said.
Is it cruel to eat Certified organic meat? Some claim it is still animal cruelty !!!!
If you eat meat then Certified Organic meat is the only option.
Some say it is a very individual and personal decision as many still believe that eating organic or bio dynamic meat is still cruel.
Watch Eathlings to see the explotation of "Animals". http://www.isawearthlings.com/ and then you can make your very own decision.
Irrespective of your views and choices it is always important to respect the choices that people make.
Part 1/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxKnys7Ryw
Part 2/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sRiH_Owq9U
part 3/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8U9dw-9U4E
---------------------------------------------------
Part extracted from Care2.com
When and if you choose to eat animal products you can make a significant difference for the environment by what choosing only organic meat and dairy products raised on sustainable farms. Choosing to support farms that caretake the environment and the animals they raise in an ethical manner, is a very positive way to spend your food dollar. By supporting local, sustainable and organic farms in your local community you also support the larger community of which we are all a part. By eating animal products raised on such farms you provide the healthiest choice for your family and support the farms that support healthy and ecological neighborhoods.
1. FREE OF ANTIBIOTICS, ADDED HORMONES, GMO FEED, AND OTHER DRUGS; NO GMO ANIMALS
2. MAD COW SAFEGUARD: ANIMALS AREN'T FORCED TO BE CANNIBALS
3. USUALLY - HUMANE, ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
4. USUALLY - ANIMALS FREE -RANGE AND GRAZE
5. THE MIGHT AND MENACE OF MANURE
6. ANIMALS ARE INTEGRAL TO SMALL FARMS
7. FEWER CHEMICALS USED
8. DIVERSITY
9. SAVE RESOURCES
10. YOUR DOLLARS SUPPORT SMALL FARMS
THE WHY, HOW AND HIGHLIGHTS OF THESE TOP TEN
1. FREE OF ANTIBIOTICS, ADDED HORMONES, GMO FEED, AND OTHER DRUGS; NO GMO ANIMALS
WHY: Animals raised organically are not allowed to be fed antibiotics, the bovine human growth hormone (rbGH), or other artificial drugs. Animals are also not allowed to eat genetically modified foods.
Further, animal products certified as organic can not have their genes modified (for example, a scorpion gene cannot be spliced into a cow gene). HOW: The animals are raised in a healthier environment, fed organic feed, and often eat a wider range of nutrients than those raised in factory farms (such as would be the case of free-range chickens and ranch cattle).
The animals are not from a testtube. HIGHLIGHTS: Organically raised animals have been shown to be significantly healthier than their factory-raised counterparts.
2. MAD COW SAFEGUARD: ANIMALS AREN'T FORCED TO BE CANNIBALS
WHY: The practice of feeding cattle the ground up remains of their same species appears to cause bovine spongiform encephalopathy, a horrific disease that destroys the central nervous system and brain, can be given to humans who eat the cows. The disease in humans has a very long latency period, and is called Creutzfeld-Jakob disease.
HOW: Animals are fed 100 percent organic feed without ground up animal parts.
HIGHLIGHTS: By eating 100 percent organic meat you are protected by a label insuring the cow has only been fed 100 percent organic feed.
3. MORE HUMANE, ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
WHY: Factory farms treat animals like commodities, and they are kept in tightly confined pens and often never move more than a few feet their whole lives.
HOW: Buy meat and eggs raised from chickens raised outdoors free ranging and grazing.
HIGHLIGHTS: Animals are more likely to be raised without cruelty.
4. ANIMALS FREE -RANGE AND GRAZE
WHY: The words "free-range," and "ranch raised" are clues that the animals were raised in a more humane way. Their diet tends to be more well-rounded; the animals are not confined and spend time outdoors in the fresh air.
HOW: Free range chickens eat more grubs and bugs than their industrially-raised counterparts; free range animals graze as they are inclined.
HIGHLIGHTS: Humane and ethical treatment of animals; more nutritious food.
5. MANURE
WHY: Small Farms Use It; Industrial Farms Pollute With It
HOW: On small, diverse farms, manure is used to naturally fertilize soil. Industrial farms produce so much manure, on the other hand, that it is a human health risk. The overspill of manure can contaminate wells with E. coli and other pathogens. In one region of North Carolina, for example, hog farms produce ten million metric tons of waste annually.
HIGHLIGHTS: Sustainable farms use their manure productively as organic fertilizer. The manure is "pure," coming from animals fed organic diets.
6. ANIMALS ARE INTEGRAL TO SMALL FARMS
WHY: Using animal manure is considered recycling of nutrients. No farm can cope with all the animal offspring, so selling some makes economic sense. Sustainable farms tend to provide and sell a range of products, and organic eggs and animal products would be included.
HOW: Most organic farms have a few cows, chickens, etc.
HIGHLIGHTS: The animals --many of diverse gene pools -- serve a purpose besides providing food.
7. FEWER CHEMICALS USED
WHY: Synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are not used on the food or land. Residues of persistent chemicals such as DDT, PCBs, dioxin, and many pesticides concentrate in animal fat. Eating organic animal fat reduces your exposure to these chemicals.
Farmers working on organic farms are exposed to fewer chemicals.
HOW: Organic agriculture works for a healthy balance of the soil, including using crop rotation and other techniques to improve soil fertility, instead of controlling the environment with chemicals. The animals are not fed food containing pesticides, and so the amount of persistent pesticides in their fat is reduced.
HIGHLIGHTS: Safeguards groundwater, farmers' health, topsoil, habitats, and neighborhood health.
8. DIVERSITY
WHY: Industrial farms rely on just a few species of cattle, chickens, pigs, etc., whereas small sustainable farms tend to raise a wider variety of livestock. Entire species of livestock can die out if they are not raised on farms.
HOW: Support our food supply by buying food representative of a wide gene pool. Every time you even buy a brown instead of a white egg you are helping to support diversity.
HIGHLIGHTS: Support diversity by supporting diversity on your local farms. Buy their milk, eggs, and meat.
9. FACTORY FARMS USE HUGE AMOUNTS OF RESOURCES
WHY: The factory farm industry is run with cheap, nonrenewable fossil fuel. Producing, transporting, processing, and marketing the food all depend heavily on it. Without cheap fuel, industrial agriculture would be impossible because it would be too expensive, notes organic farming expert Fred Kirschenmann. The heavy pesticide use on industrial farms contaminates groundwater and soil. Kirschenmann believes industrial farms are responsible for the loss of over half of U.S. topsoil.
HOW: Organic farms uses less energy with careful ecological management, and using natural ecological balances to solve pest problems. Buying animal products from local farms further reduces energy by reducing the amount of miles the food travels to your table.
HIGHLIGHTS: Organic farms use 70 percent less energy than industrial farms, and since they don't use pesticides they help preserve ground water. The farming techniques of organic farms builds top soil and doesn't contribute to its erosion.
10. YOUR DOLLARS SUPPORT THE FARMS YOU BUY FROM
WHY: If you buy your meat from an organic farmstand at a farmer's market you support that farm. On the other hand, if you buy nonorganic meat that isn't local, free-range, or ranch-raised from a supermarket chain, you most likely support a multinational food conglomerate.
HOW: You can contribute to the wellbeing of your community by supporting small, local, diverse organic farms.
Some say it is a very individual and personal decision as many still believe that eating organic or bio dynamic meat is still cruel.
Watch Eathlings to see the explotation of "Animals". http://www.isawearthlings.com/ and then you can make your very own decision.
Irrespective of your views and choices it is always important to respect the choices that people make.
Part 1/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxKnys7Ryw
Part 2/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sRiH_Owq9U
part 3/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8U9dw-9U4E
---------------------------------------------------
Part extracted from Care2.com
When and if you choose to eat animal products you can make a significant difference for the environment by what choosing only organic meat and dairy products raised on sustainable farms. Choosing to support farms that caretake the environment and the animals they raise in an ethical manner, is a very positive way to spend your food dollar. By supporting local, sustainable and organic farms in your local community you also support the larger community of which we are all a part. By eating animal products raised on such farms you provide the healthiest choice for your family and support the farms that support healthy and ecological neighborhoods.
1. FREE OF ANTIBIOTICS, ADDED HORMONES, GMO FEED, AND OTHER DRUGS; NO GMO ANIMALS
2. MAD COW SAFEGUARD: ANIMALS AREN'T FORCED TO BE CANNIBALS
3. USUALLY - HUMANE, ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
4. USUALLY - ANIMALS FREE -RANGE AND GRAZE
5. THE MIGHT AND MENACE OF MANURE
6. ANIMALS ARE INTEGRAL TO SMALL FARMS
7. FEWER CHEMICALS USED
8. DIVERSITY
9. SAVE RESOURCES
10. YOUR DOLLARS SUPPORT SMALL FARMS
THE WHY, HOW AND HIGHLIGHTS OF THESE TOP TEN
1. FREE OF ANTIBIOTICS, ADDED HORMONES, GMO FEED, AND OTHER DRUGS; NO GMO ANIMALS
WHY: Animals raised organically are not allowed to be fed antibiotics, the bovine human growth hormone (rbGH), or other artificial drugs. Animals are also not allowed to eat genetically modified foods.
Further, animal products certified as organic can not have their genes modified (for example, a scorpion gene cannot be spliced into a cow gene). HOW: The animals are raised in a healthier environment, fed organic feed, and often eat a wider range of nutrients than those raised in factory farms (such as would be the case of free-range chickens and ranch cattle).
The animals are not from a testtube. HIGHLIGHTS: Organically raised animals have been shown to be significantly healthier than their factory-raised counterparts.
2. MAD COW SAFEGUARD: ANIMALS AREN'T FORCED TO BE CANNIBALS
WHY: The practice of feeding cattle the ground up remains of their same species appears to cause bovine spongiform encephalopathy, a horrific disease that destroys the central nervous system and brain, can be given to humans who eat the cows. The disease in humans has a very long latency period, and is called Creutzfeld-Jakob disease.
HOW: Animals are fed 100 percent organic feed without ground up animal parts.
HIGHLIGHTS: By eating 100 percent organic meat you are protected by a label insuring the cow has only been fed 100 percent organic feed.
3. MORE HUMANE, ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
WHY: Factory farms treat animals like commodities, and they are kept in tightly confined pens and often never move more than a few feet their whole lives.
HOW: Buy meat and eggs raised from chickens raised outdoors free ranging and grazing.
HIGHLIGHTS: Animals are more likely to be raised without cruelty.
4. ANIMALS FREE -RANGE AND GRAZE
WHY: The words "free-range," and "ranch raised" are clues that the animals were raised in a more humane way. Their diet tends to be more well-rounded; the animals are not confined and spend time outdoors in the fresh air.
HOW: Free range chickens eat more grubs and bugs than their industrially-raised counterparts; free range animals graze as they are inclined.
HIGHLIGHTS: Humane and ethical treatment of animals; more nutritious food.
5. MANURE
WHY: Small Farms Use It; Industrial Farms Pollute With It
HOW: On small, diverse farms, manure is used to naturally fertilize soil. Industrial farms produce so much manure, on the other hand, that it is a human health risk. The overspill of manure can contaminate wells with E. coli and other pathogens. In one region of North Carolina, for example, hog farms produce ten million metric tons of waste annually.
HIGHLIGHTS: Sustainable farms use their manure productively as organic fertilizer. The manure is "pure," coming from animals fed organic diets.
6. ANIMALS ARE INTEGRAL TO SMALL FARMS
WHY: Using animal manure is considered recycling of nutrients. No farm can cope with all the animal offspring, so selling some makes economic sense. Sustainable farms tend to provide and sell a range of products, and organic eggs and animal products would be included.
HOW: Most organic farms have a few cows, chickens, etc.
HIGHLIGHTS: The animals --many of diverse gene pools -- serve a purpose besides providing food.
7. FEWER CHEMICALS USED
WHY: Synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are not used on the food or land. Residues of persistent chemicals such as DDT, PCBs, dioxin, and many pesticides concentrate in animal fat. Eating organic animal fat reduces your exposure to these chemicals.
Farmers working on organic farms are exposed to fewer chemicals.
HOW: Organic agriculture works for a healthy balance of the soil, including using crop rotation and other techniques to improve soil fertility, instead of controlling the environment with chemicals. The animals are not fed food containing pesticides, and so the amount of persistent pesticides in their fat is reduced.
HIGHLIGHTS: Safeguards groundwater, farmers' health, topsoil, habitats, and neighborhood health.
8. DIVERSITY
WHY: Industrial farms rely on just a few species of cattle, chickens, pigs, etc., whereas small sustainable farms tend to raise a wider variety of livestock. Entire species of livestock can die out if they are not raised on farms.
HOW: Support our food supply by buying food representative of a wide gene pool. Every time you even buy a brown instead of a white egg you are helping to support diversity.
HIGHLIGHTS: Support diversity by supporting diversity on your local farms. Buy their milk, eggs, and meat.
9. FACTORY FARMS USE HUGE AMOUNTS OF RESOURCES
WHY: The factory farm industry is run with cheap, nonrenewable fossil fuel. Producing, transporting, processing, and marketing the food all depend heavily on it. Without cheap fuel, industrial agriculture would be impossible because it would be too expensive, notes organic farming expert Fred Kirschenmann. The heavy pesticide use on industrial farms contaminates groundwater and soil. Kirschenmann believes industrial farms are responsible for the loss of over half of U.S. topsoil.
HOW: Organic farms uses less energy with careful ecological management, and using natural ecological balances to solve pest problems. Buying animal products from local farms further reduces energy by reducing the amount of miles the food travels to your table.
HIGHLIGHTS: Organic farms use 70 percent less energy than industrial farms, and since they don't use pesticides they help preserve ground water. The farming techniques of organic farms builds top soil and doesn't contribute to its erosion.
10. YOUR DOLLARS SUPPORT THE FARMS YOU BUY FROM
WHY: If you buy your meat from an organic farmstand at a farmer's market you support that farm. On the other hand, if you buy nonorganic meat that isn't local, free-range, or ranch-raised from a supermarket chain, you most likely support a multinational food conglomerate.
HOW: You can contribute to the wellbeing of your community by supporting small, local, diverse organic farms.
Is Organic Food REALLY expensive ?
Extracted from http://www.otacnet.com.au/
What is the true price of our cheap food?
* Is organic food too expensive - should it be cheaper?Or, in reality, is conventional industrial food too cheap?
* Are cheap foods the only way to go in a hungry world?
* What does food truly cost to produce, distribute and sell?
* Do we as a culture insist on cheaper food? Is this possible to turn around?
It is hard to find any information on what the real price of food is today. What it costs to produce and distribute varies enormously, and may not be accurately reflected in the price the consumer pays.
When economists calculate the financial exchange from when the farmer produces the food until it is on the consumer's table, have they considered the hidden costs of poor quality farming, distribution and retail practices?
What kind of long-term consequences do practices that are not organic and sustainable really have on the health and future of humankind and our planet?
It is clear that good organic food could cost more to grow and produce, but have we already been selling ourselves short?
Is it not more important to educate people about the organic growing processes, rather than apologizing for the premium price and slowly lessening and killing life on our planet.
WHAT IS THE TRUE PRICE WE ARE PAYING FOR OUR FOOD, WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE COSTS OF:
* Environmental degradation and pollution
* Unsustainable overuse of natural resources
* Sweat shop, manufacturing, farmers' wages and long term poverty
* Health risks, new diseases, antibiotic resistance, fertility etc
* Food miles, and ecological foodprints
* Junk food profit margins, who benefits?
* Ethical considerations
* Loss of food nutritional quality & taste
* Animal welfare
* Economics; Profit margins versus long term sustainability
* Destruction of communities, rural decline
* Loss of cultural diversity and sustainability
* Loss of sustainable business and healthy communities
* Market economies globalization, WTO, unemployment, free trade
* Loss of diversity
* Loss of quality of life
The costs of these inevitably are passed on the community and therefore the consumer.
GET BETTER VALUE FOR YOUR MONEY
Government no longer talks of constituents it talks of consumers.
It is the consumers who drive change. They (you) can influence governments and change the world with their (you) spending.
Every time they (you) purchase they (you) are sending a message to farmers, growers, manufacturers, processors, retailers (& politicians).
You can send the right messages to government by supporting:
* Local food programs
* Food artisans & Slow Foods
* Food programs for the poor
* School kitchens, gardens and cooking
* Food activisim, GMO's Greenpeace
* Stewardship of the land
* Food commissions, groups and alliances
* Paying more for food not less
* Web debates and discussion
* Product knowledge, reading labels
"...independent producers of food- such as the people who present us with the meat poultry, eggs and butter- provide the lowest profit margin in the industry. People who put out the junk food...have an incredible return on invested capital because they are putting out low cost items and making a very high profit"
- Robert Atkins, MD (quoted in "Nourishing Traditions" Author Sally Fallon)
"To make organic & non-organic the same price, organic food would have to contain additives rather than real ingredients and to go through processes such as re-constitution to reduce the food values and cost of ingredients. People want to eat healthy food, not adulterated food. We need to nurture the principles and production of organic food rather than starve them out of business by imposing upon them unrealistic expectations on price."
- Lizzie Vann, Organix Brands (UK baby food manufacturer since 1992) Living Earth, Jan -Mar 2001
What is the true price of our cheap food?
* Is organic food too expensive - should it be cheaper?Or, in reality, is conventional industrial food too cheap?
* Are cheap foods the only way to go in a hungry world?
* What does food truly cost to produce, distribute and sell?
* Do we as a culture insist on cheaper food? Is this possible to turn around?
It is hard to find any information on what the real price of food is today. What it costs to produce and distribute varies enormously, and may not be accurately reflected in the price the consumer pays.
When economists calculate the financial exchange from when the farmer produces the food until it is on the consumer's table, have they considered the hidden costs of poor quality farming, distribution and retail practices?
What kind of long-term consequences do practices that are not organic and sustainable really have on the health and future of humankind and our planet?
It is clear that good organic food could cost more to grow and produce, but have we already been selling ourselves short?
Is it not more important to educate people about the organic growing processes, rather than apologizing for the premium price and slowly lessening and killing life on our planet.
WHAT IS THE TRUE PRICE WE ARE PAYING FOR OUR FOOD, WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE COSTS OF:
* Environmental degradation and pollution
* Unsustainable overuse of natural resources
* Sweat shop, manufacturing, farmers' wages and long term poverty
* Health risks, new diseases, antibiotic resistance, fertility etc
* Food miles, and ecological foodprints
* Junk food profit margins, who benefits?
* Ethical considerations
* Loss of food nutritional quality & taste
* Animal welfare
* Economics; Profit margins versus long term sustainability
* Destruction of communities, rural decline
* Loss of cultural diversity and sustainability
* Loss of sustainable business and healthy communities
* Market economies globalization, WTO, unemployment, free trade
* Loss of diversity
* Loss of quality of life
The costs of these inevitably are passed on the community and therefore the consumer.
GET BETTER VALUE FOR YOUR MONEY
Government no longer talks of constituents it talks of consumers.
It is the consumers who drive change. They (you) can influence governments and change the world with their (you) spending.
Every time they (you) purchase they (you) are sending a message to farmers, growers, manufacturers, processors, retailers (& politicians).
You can send the right messages to government by supporting:
* Local food programs
* Food artisans & Slow Foods
* Food programs for the poor
* School kitchens, gardens and cooking
* Food activisim, GMO's Greenpeace
* Stewardship of the land
* Food commissions, groups and alliances
* Paying more for food not less
* Web debates and discussion
* Product knowledge, reading labels
"...independent producers of food- such as the people who present us with the meat poultry, eggs and butter- provide the lowest profit margin in the industry. People who put out the junk food...have an incredible return on invested capital because they are putting out low cost items and making a very high profit"
- Robert Atkins, MD (quoted in "Nourishing Traditions" Author Sally Fallon)
"To make organic & non-organic the same price, organic food would have to contain additives rather than real ingredients and to go through processes such as re-constitution to reduce the food values and cost of ingredients. People want to eat healthy food, not adulterated food. We need to nurture the principles and production of organic food rather than starve them out of business by imposing upon them unrealistic expectations on price."
- Lizzie Vann, Organix Brands (UK baby food manufacturer since 1992) Living Earth, Jan -Mar 2001
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
