Organic Works BLOG

The article they didn't want you to read

2007-08-24T12:32:00.000+10:00

The GM Watch website is back after being shut down for nearly a week.
In an outrageous attack on free speech a Canadian Government bureaucrat succeeded in censoring a UK public interest website which serves a global audience on the GM issue. But his goal went still further than that.
The concern was over our expose of how a group of researchers deliberately skewed research to favour GM corn. Shane Morris initially focused his legal threats on the use of the word "fraud" in the title of our article, but once the GM Watch website had been forced down, his real goal became clear.
In a legal threat against GM-free Ireland, he stated:
"You will note that the GM Watch website in the UK has been disabled. As a matter of urgency please remove the [sic] **all** the GM Watch material on GM FREE IRELAND's website that you have reproduced in connection with me." (our emphasis added)
It's vital that this aggressive attempt at web censorship is totally defeated.
*Please circulate this news, and the following article, as widely as possible.
*If you know a website where this could be posted, please ask them to reproduce this message and the following GM Watch article, in order to expose just how far some people will go to try and fix public debate.
---
---
THE GM PROPAGANDA LAB (PART 1)
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1
***The article they didn't want you to read***
[Go to the web page to see the damning photo of the "Would you eat wormy sweet corn?" sign]
The British Food Journal's Award for Excellence for Most Outstanding Paper in 2004 went to research that should never have been published. What the reviewers mistook for an impressive piece of scientific enquiry was a carefully crafted propaganda exercise that could only have one outcome. Both the award and the paper now need to be retracted.
***
Since this article was published a leading researcher into scientific ethics has called for the paper to be retracted.
New Scientist's report
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19025533.300&feedId=gm-food_rss20
***
It was late September 1999. The scene was a news conference outside a Loblaws grocery store in downtown Toronto. Greenpeace and the Council of Canadians were launching a public awareness campaign urging customers to ask the chain to remove all genetically modified foods from their shelves.
"The food is safe," shouted someone on the edge of the crowd. Jeff Wilson, who farms about 250 hectares northwest of Toronto, was part of a small group of hecklers. He had come to the store with Jim Fischer, the head of a lobby group called AgCare which supports GM foods. Doug Powell, an assistant professor at the University of Guelph, was also there.
And they had come prepared. Holding aloft a bug-ravaged cabbage, Wilson demanded, "Would you buy that?" Wilson claimed the cabbage could have been saved by genetic engineering.
According to a report in the Toronto Star, Doug Powell ended up in a shouting match with a shopper - 71-year old Evan John Evans, who told him, "I resent you putting stuff in my food I don't want."
A year later and Powell and Wilson's street theatrics had given way to a much more carefully choreographed exercise in persuading people that GM foods were what they wanted.
The scene this time was not Loblaws but Jeff Wilson's farm store, just outside the village of Hillsburgh. Here Powell and Wilson were running an experiment that had been conceived following the Loblaws encounter.
During summer 2000 Wilson grew both GM and conventional sweet corn on his farm. And following the first harvest in late August, both types of corn were put on sale amidst much publicity. The aim was to see which type would appeal most to Wilson's customers.
According to an award winning paper published in the British Food Journal, a sizeable majority opted to buy the GM corn. In the paper, authored by Wilson and Powell, and Powell's two research assistants - Katija Blaine and Shane Morris, the choice appears simple - the bins were "fully labeled" - either "genetically engineered Bt sweet corn" or "Regular sweet-corn". The only other written information mentioned in the paper that might have influenced the preference of customers was lists of the chemicals used on each type of corn, and pamphlets "with background information on the project."
What Powell and his co-authors failed to report was that the information on the chemicals came with a variation on the bug-eaten cabbage stunt Wilson pulled outside Loblaws. There Wilson had demanded of shoppers "Would you buy that?" In Wilson's store the sign above the non-GM corn bin asked, "Would You Eat Wormy Sweet Corn?" Above the the Bt-corn bin, by contrast, the equivalent sign was headed: "Here's What Went into Producing Quality Sweet Corn".
Toronto Star reporter Stuart Laidlaw, who visited Wilson's farm several times during the research, says, "It is the only time I have seen a store label its own corn 'wormy'". In his book Secret Ingredients , Laidlaw includes a photograph of the "wormy" corn sign, and drily notes, "when one bin was marked 'wormy corn' and another 'quality sweet corn,' it was hardly surprising which sold more."
Laidlaw also notes that any mention of the corn being labelled as "wormy" or "quality" was omitted in presentations and writings about the experiment. This is certainly the case with the paper in the British Food Journal. Yet the paper describes in some detail the care that the researchers took to avoid biasing consumer choice - by having, for example, both corn-bins kept filled to the same level throughout the day; and by selling the two different types of corn for exactly the same amount. We are even told the precise purchase price: Cnd$3.99/dozen.
The emotively worded signs are not the only instance of glaring experimenter bias that went unmentioned in the award winning paper. During his visits to the store, Laidlaw noted that an information table contained, as well as press releases and pamphlets on the experiments, a number of pro-GM fact sheets - some authored by industry lobby groups, but no balancing information from critics of genetic engineering.
And the bias didn't stop there. The lead researcher, Doug Powell, actually demonstrated to the journalist his ability to influence customer responses to questions about Bt corn and their future purchasing preferences. Laidlaw describes how when a customer who'd bought non-Bt corn was walking to his truck, "Powell talked to him about Bt corn - describing how it did not need insecticides because it produced its own and that it had been approved as safe by the federal government. Powell then told me I should talk to the man again. I did, and he said he would buy GM corn the next time he was at the store. Powell stood nearby with his arms crossed and a smile on his face."
Outside Loblaws the previous Fall, Powell had ended up in an unsuccessful slanging match. Now Powell and his associates had engineered a setting in which customer responses could be influenced far more successfully. Seeing Powell in action convinced Laidlaw that the only conclusion which could safely be drawn from these "experiments" was that, "fed a lot of pro-biotech sales pitches, shoppers could be convinced to buy GM products."
But none of the "pro-biotech sales pitches" made their way into the paper for which Powell and his associates were commended. Instead, research that was little more than pro-GM propaganda was presented as providing a meticulous scientific evaluation of consumer purchasing preferences.
READ ON AT
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1

Organic Tomatoes Found to be More Nutritious

2007-07-31T17:10:00.001+10:00

Soil Quality from Long-term Organic Management Nearly Doubles Flavonoids in Organic Tomatoes July 2007
For more than ten years, scientists at U.C. Davis in California have conducted a Long-Term Research on Agricultural Systems project (LTRAS). The impacts of conventional and organic management on tomato production and tomato nutrient concentrations have been a major focus of this effort.On June 23, 2007, the American Chemical Society’s Journal of Food and Agricultural Chemistry published compelling results from the LTRAS (Mitchell et al., 2007). The team found that the level of quercitin, the most common flavonoid in the human diet and the major flavonoid in tomatoes, increased 79 percent as a result of organic management, and kaempferol levels rose 97 percent. In addition, and significantly, the longer a field was managed organically, the bigger the margin in flavonoid levels between organic and conventional plots. The level of quercitin in the organic plots increased about 5 milligrams per gram of dried tomato per year, with the largest increases coming after seven years of organic management. In the conventional plots, quercitin levels increased only 2 mg/gram per year. This finding supports the need for a three-year transition period before a field is eligible to grow certified organic crops, and also helps explain the relatively smaller percentage increases in antioxidant levels typically found in university studies that entail just a few years of organic management. The team points out that a number of factors can trigger the biosynthetic pathway in plants that produces flavonoids – nutrient deficiency, pest attack, wounding, pathogens, and UV radiation (sunlight). This study is unique because of its long duration and the careful accounting of production and nutrient inputs and nitrogen availability. The scientists focused on the long-run impacts of well-defined, typical organic and conventional cropping systems using the same tomato cultivar, rather than the impacts of individual practices and inputs. Tomatoes yields did not vary significantly between the conventional and organic plots, although the variation in yields was lower in the organic plots. The ability of soils under organic management to take in and store water more effectively than conventionally managed soils likely accounts for this finding.Another unique aspect of this study is the ability to link changes in the nutrient content of tomatoes to the impacts of organic management on soil quality. The authors report significantly higher soil organic matter (SOM) levels in the organic plots. SOM levels rose through 1998 in the LTRAS, and reached a steady-state in 1998-1999, at which point the team reduced dramatically the applications of compost. The reduction in total nitrogen applied to the organic system did not reduce yields, and was accompanied by increased flavonoid levels. The authors concluded that –“Flavonoid content in tomatoes seems to be related to available N. Plants with limited N accumulate more flavonoids than those that are well-supplied….overfertilization (conventional or organic) might reduce the health benefits from tomatoes”This study provides powerful, new evidence in support of a nutrient “dilution effect” triggered by high levels of nitrogen and rapid plant growth, especially in the absence of pest pressure.Source: “Ten-Year Comparison of the Influences of Organic and Conventional Crop Management Practices on the Content of Flavonoids in Tomatoes”Authors: Alyson E. Mitchell, Yun-Jeong Hong, Eunmi Koh, Diane M. Barrett, D.E. Bryant, R. Ford Denison, and Stephen Kaffka.Journal of Food and Agricultural Chemistry, published online June 23, 2007.

Organic Production Increases Yields and Builds Soil Quality in Iowa

2007-07-31T17:08:00.000+10:00

Yields increase, soil resilience soars; Long-term research proves organic promise
By ANNE LARSON, Special to the Leopold Center

Year-by-year comparisons, ISU Organic Ag web site

Coupling long-term cropping research with rigorous replication yields reliable results. That’s the premise that drove establishment of the Center’s Long-Term Agricultural Research (LTAR) initiative in 1998 at the Neely-Kinyon Research Farm near Greenfield. The study is believed to be the largest randomized, replicated comparison of organic and conventional crops in the nation.
Kathleen Delate presents information at the August 2006 Neely-Kinyon field day, which drew more than 200 people.
An aerial view of the ISU organic field test plots, which are believed to be the longest-running, largest, randomized comparison of organic and conventional crops in the nation.
Nine years later, leader Kathleen Delate, Iowa State University horticulture and agronomy professor, can display results that convincingly show greater yield, increased profitability, and steadily improved soil quality in organic over conventional rotations. The results bode well for producers looking for higher returns while building soils. “The long-term project enables us to achieve repeatable results,” Delate explains. “If you get the same results over time, they become much more credible to farmers, scientists and policymakers,” she adds.The LTAR has been funded by the Leopold Center to examine short- and long-term physical, biological and economic outcomes of certified organic and conventional grain-based cropping systems. The Neely-Kinyon farm research is testing whether organic systems relying on inputs such as composted manure can promote stable yields, soil quality and plant protection. Those results are being compared with a corn-soybean (C-S) rotation supported by greater levels of externally acquired inputs such as fossil-based fuels. The rotations used on the organic plots have been corn-soybean-oat/alfalfa (C-S-O/A) and corn-soybean-oat/alfalfa-alfalfa (C-S-O/A-A).In the LTAR project, organic crop yields were equal to conventional acres in the three years of transition. In the fourth year, organic corn yields in the longest rotation outpaced those of conventional corn. Organic soybean, which can be grown for a price premium, also out-yielded conventional soybean in the fourth year of the rotation. The research also reported remarkable consistency of yields during the first three transitional years.
One of the things that sets the research apart in addition to its length and design, is that the plots are 42 meters by 21 meters (about 138 ft. by 69 ft., or about 0.2 acre), large enough to accommodate conventional farm equipment. Soil scientist and co-investigator Cynthia Cambardella of the USDA National Soil Tilth Laboratory says the large plots were part of what initially drew her to the research. The biggest attraction was the chance to study changes in soil quality during the transition from conventional to organic management within a completely randomized, replicated experiment.Cambardella has monitored a number of soil quality characteristics as part of the project. Those factors include:
soil organic carbon (C);
potentially mineralized nitrogen (N);
particulate organic matter C;
microbial biomass C;
inorganic N;
pH; and
soil structure.
All of these measures have some impact on soil quality. Potentially mineralized N is an estimate of the available part of N that is held in reserve in the soil, cycling and becoming available when temperature and moisture favor microbial activity. Particulate organic matter C comes primarily from the plant root systems and is an easily digestible source of energy for soil microorganisms. Microbial biomass C comes from the bodies of soil organisms and is one of the most easily digestible food sources in the soil. The nutrient needs of organically managed crops are met entirely through the recycling of nutrients from crop residue, roots, green manures and added amendments. High-quality soils cycle nutrients more efficiently and make them available when and where the plants need them.The organic plots are amended in early spring with composted swine manure, made from a mixture of manure and corn stover that was removed from deep-bedded swine “hoop house” structures located nearby. The organic plots are disked, rotary-hoed and cultivated, with an average of two row cultivations per year.On the organic plots, the organic matter from the composted manure quickly helped enhance the resilience of the soil.“Key to this is organic matter and the supply of nutrients,” Cambardella explains. “Biologically active nutrients can be tapped by the plant when temperatures and moisture will drive availability,” she adds. “The exciting news is that, rather quickly, easily decomposable N began to be reserved in the soil in forms that are not subject to leaching with spring rains,” Cambardella says. Soil structural stability also remained good, despite the increased tillage involved with the organic rotations.Cambardella has observed a number of factors that point toward improved soil health on the organic plots, as compared with conventional C-S. After seven years of organic management, she has seen:
more soil organic C,
more biologically-active organic matter,
reduced soil acidity, and
maintained or improved crop yield.
Delate says the ultimate benefit of the long-term project will be to maximize confidence in the data and to monitor any unexpected results that appear over longer periods of time. Researchers will continue to examine the effects of crop sequence and length on long-term pest disruption and attraction of beneficial insects to the organic system.

Moving from conventional to organic: What is the local payoff?
Read executive summary from report

Organic cropping systems help build soils, but can they also help build local communities?That was the question explored by David Swenson and Liesl Eathington of the ISU economics department and Craig Chase, an ISU Extension farm management field specialist. They received a grant from the Leopold Center Marketing and Food Systems Initiative to assess potential region-wide economic impacts of farmers who convert operations from conventional to organic systems. They used as their model a unique Woodbury County plan that provides tax abatements for producers who make the organic transition.The project, “Determining the methods for measuring the economic and fiscal impacts associated with organic crop conversion in Iowa,” affirms existing ISU research which demonstrates that operators who choose organic methods will receive greater economic returns than those who opt for conventional practices. Next, the economic impact of that difference was measured considering all linkages with the regional economy. The study found that the economic impacts of the organic alternative were substantially larger than the conventional configuration, a significant observation for those engaged in rural and regional economic development. Specifically, organic rotation farming produced 52 percent more gross sales revenue, 110 percent more value added, and 182 percent more labor income than from the same 1,000 acres farmed using conventional corn-soybean rotation practices. According to Swenson, “the organic alternative requires greater mechanical inputs, more labor and yields a higher return to the operators. All of these factors combine to yield greater amounts of income-based economic impacts in the study region.” These outcomes will hold up, he adds, even with the recent spike in corn prices as the spread between organic and conventional crop prices has remained relatively constant.The analysis for the effective economic use of property tax abatements as an incentive for farmers to shift from conventional to organic production is not as promising. The study concludes that over a reasonable period of time, the county is not likely to recover the forgone property tax revenue used to fund the original program with sufficient new, economic impact-driven, property tax collections, as well as fund the county and public school services needed by additional workers (along with their household members) in all impacted economic sectors of the organic conversion. However, there may be important non-economic criteria in favor of a property tax inducement to alter farming practices. These would include environmental benefits, diversifying agricultural production, and supporting the development of organic foods production, processing, and consumption in the region.

Claim that GM foods present health risk 'irrefutable'

2007-07-25T14:03:00.000+10:00

1.The health risks of GM foods2.Claim that GM foods present health risk 'irrefutable'3.Minister to act quickly on issue of GM-free food 4.Ireland stands up to US pressure on GMOs
Note: For more on Shane Morris and Doug Powell (item 1) see 'Award for a Fraud'http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1
---
1.The health risks of GM foods
Letter sent to the Editor of the Irish Times, 29 June 2007
Shane Morris's attack on Jeffrey Smith's book Genetic Roulette ‚ The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods (Letters, June 29th) employs the "shoot the messenger" strategy favoured by agri-biotech industry spin doctors who are no longer able to deny the growing scientific evidence which links GM food and animal feed to deaths and disease in laboratory animals, livestock and the human population.
Morris and his biotech colleage and mentor Doug Powell (a well-known GM industry lobbyist) have co-authored a number of pro-GMO papers, one of which received the GM Watch Propaganda Lab Award 2006 for its fraudulent scientific claims, triggering a controversy reported by New Scientist magazine.
Morris wrote his letter in response to the Kildare-based farmer Nick Cullen (Letters, June 28th), who critiqued your newspaper's coverage of the briefing on Food Safety and GMOs which I recently organised with Kathy Sinnott MEP at the EU Parliament Office in Dublin ("Sargent says GMO-free pledge is a 'huge step'", June 16th).
As Nick Cullen rightly pointed out, that article avoided any reference to the peer-reviewed scientific papers presented at the briefing, including those summarised in Genetic Roulette, but quoted instead from statements from the floor by the Chairman of the Irish Times Trust, Prof David McConnell, who attempted to portray Trevor Sargent [Ireland's new Minister of State for Agriculture and Food] – and anyone else who disagrees with his views on GMOs – as scientifically illiterate.
In the interests of transparency, your article should have mentioned that Prof McConnell's Smurfit School of Genetics at TCD is part-funded by the agribiotech industry, and that he is also the Co-Chair of EAGLES (European Action on Global Life Sciences), a biotech industry lobby group which promotes GM food and crops in the developing countries.
Our new government's aim to keep the whole island of Ireland free of GM crops and livestock will help our food and farm sectors retain access to the EU market for safe food, which increasingly prohibits or restricts the use of any food (including meat and dairy produce) containing or derived from genetically modified ingredients.
Our media should not encourage us to abandon this long-term competitive advantage because of vested interests.
GM foods and farming present a variety of extremely serious health, agronomic, environmental, legal, economic and food security risks. Please provide some more balanced coverage of these issues in the Irish Times!
Yours etcMichael O'CallaghanCo-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network---
2.Claim that GM foods present health risk 'irrefutable'By Julie-Anne BarnesIrish Medical News, 30 June 2007http://www.irishmedicalnews.ie/articles.asp?Category=news&ArticleID=19086
The known health risks of genetically modified (GM) foods present a case that is "overwhelming and irrefutable" and it is now up to the biotech industry to provide rigorous scientific evidence "to show they are not risking the health of the population with food".
Mr Jeffrey M Smith, author of Genetic Roulete made this claim at a recent briefing on food safety and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) at the European Parliament Office in Dublin, where he said there are 65 documented health risks from GM foods. Mr Smith said there are now thousands of human beings complaining of toxic or allergic- type reactions from consuming, breathing or even touching GM produce.
"There are numerous ways in which the process of genetic engineering has been shown to create unpredicted side effects and many of the most fundamental assumptions that we use for the basis of safety claims have been truly wrong in the years since these crops were introduced," said Mr Smith.
His presentation coincided with the announcement by Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, with responsibility for Food and Horticulture, Mr Trevor Sargent that one of the Green Party’s primary goals is to ensure that Ireland becomes Europe's first 100 per cent GM Free zone.
Mr Sargent said that the effects of GM foods on human health "are largely untested and potentially very dangerous" and "the use of GM animal feed is damaging our world famous clean green reputation as 'Ireland the food island'".
Ms Kathy Sinnott, MEP also addressed the meeting where she said the new government would need to stand up to the European Commission, which refuses to recognize the legal democratic right of member states and local authorities to have the final say on whether GM crops may be grown in their areas. During the course of the meeting Prof David McConnell, Department of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin challenged Mr Michael O'Callaghan, co-ordinator of the GM-Free Ireland Network and Minister Sargent.
He accused Mr O'Callaghan of "impugning" his scientific reputation during the briefing and said what Prof McConnell was arguing was that everybody interested in the GM debate should take scientific advice and that advice should represent the broad community of science "and you should not pin your view to one view or one expectation of scientific outcome".
He added that he found it very unfortunate that people claiming to be interested in science "really don't understand it and that is really quite serious".
Mr O'Callaghan said the notion that GM crops and non-GM crops can co-exist "is like the notion you can have a person with an infectious disease running around in a population where other people will be contaminated". The meeting was also addressed by Dr Ricarda A Steinbrecher, PhD, developmental biologist and geneticist, EcoNexus.
---
3.Sargent to act quickly on issue of GM-free food By Sean MacConnell The Irish Times, 27 June 2007 [shortened] http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/0627/1181771944152.html
The first moves to have Ireland move to where it can claim its food is produced without the aid of GM feed will be made soon by Minister for Food Trevor Sargent.
On his first official engagement as Minister of State for Agriculture with responsibility for food and horticulture, Mr. Sargent said yesterday there was an urgency to move on the GM issue. "I have been getting reports from our markets in Italy and France that they are increasingly moving in the direction of requiring that produce be fed on GM-free feed," he said.
Ireland does not have a clear position in my mind, as yet, on the direction we are going in that regard," he said at the launch of the latest Bridgestone Guide.
"I want to bring together the farming organisations, the food retailers, the grain importers and the people in the Department of Agriculture so we can formulate a strategy in the best interests of the producers and the country."
He said countries which were already able to make this claim were threatening Irish exports and using GM-free status as a marketing tool.
---
4.Ireland stands up to US pressure on GMOs GM-free Ireland press release, 28 June 2007
*Ireland, France and Italy abstain in crucial EU vote on GM animal feed *ICMSA calls for 5-year moratorium on GM crops
DUBLIN - The Irish Government stuck to its new policy goal of protecting this whole island as a GMO-free zone by abandoning its previously agreed intention to legalise a controversial GM maize at a crucial European vote in Brussels on Monday [1].
The decision to follow the new policy was made after intense negotiations last weekend between Mary Coughlan (the Minister of Agriculture and Food), Mary Harney (Minister for Health and Children), Trevor Sargent (the new Green Minister of Agriculture and Food), and Michael O'Callaghan (Co-ordinator of the GM-free Ireland Network) [2].
The illegal GM maize, called Herculex RW, is patented by Pioneer / Dow (of Agent Orange fame). It contains DNA from viruses and bacteria, and is modified to resist weedkiller and produce its own insecticide [3]. There are serious concerns about its impacts on animal and human health [4]. Although "deregulated" in the USA, it remains illegal in the EU.
The European Commisison requested member states to retroactively legalise this GM product after the Irish Department of Agriculture and Food failed to stop it from entering the European food chain in April. Up to 5,313 tonnes of maize gluten contaminated by the illegal GM corn have since been placed on the Irish market and sold to farmers as fodder which their livestock transform into meat and dairy produce, creating health risks for livestock and consumers, together with potential legal problems and liability lawsuits for the government, the feed importer, feed compounder, farmers, food retailers and food exporters [5].
Contaminate first, legislate later
The European Commission's sudden and rapid attempt to legalise Herculex GM maize suggests that the EC is more concerned with neutralizing an illegal GM food contamination scandal, rather than enforcing legal requirements on member states to rigorously test and prevent such contamination in the first place [6]. Monday's vote at the EC Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health was a new case of the "contaminate first, legislate later" strategy favoured by griant transnational agri-biotech corporations determined to genetically modify and patent the world's agricultural seeds so as to control the global food supply [7].
Following a preliminary "indicative vote" made by EU member states, the EC expected them to provide a Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) in favour of legalising the GM maize for use as animal feed and food (but not for cultivation) on Monday. This would have provided a major PR victory for the US government and the agri-biotech industry, because it would have been the first time that EU member voted to legalise a GM product since 1998. Unless there is a QMV against legalisation, the Commission always automatically rubberstamps GMO approval in the end [8].
Prior to Monday's vote, the WTO, USA, EC and PR companies employed by the agri-biotech industry exerted huge pressure on the EU member states to vote in favour of placing this GM maize on the market [9], and have since put pressure on the Irish government to justify its reasons for abstaining. The Irish Grain and Feed Association vigorously lobbied Mary Coughlan, Mary Harney and policy makers in Brussels to vote yes, claiming it was "vital" that this GM maize be approved. A flurry of obvious or subtly pro-GMO stories also appeared in the media [10].
Irish farmers to the rescue
Last Friday, Trevor Sargent summoned Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland to negotiations with representatives of Mary Harney and Mary Coughlan, who had made preliminary agreements to legalise the GM maize under the previous governmnent. O'Callaghan provided the representatives with hard scientific evidence about the health risks of GMOs including the book "Genetic Roulette - The documented health risks of genetically engineered foods" [11] and copies of two scientic papers [12] on the health risks of GM foods from a recent briefing on the health risk of GM foods at the EU Parliament Office in Dublin [13].
On Sunday morning, Jackie Cahill of the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association [14] and Malcolm Thompson of the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association [15] telephoned Mary Coughlan to request her to vote NO.
Trevor Sargent finalised the negotiations in a meeting with Mary Coughlan and Mary Harney on Sunday.
As a result of this collective effort, Ireland abstained from Monday's vote, along with Italy and France, contributing to the lack of a Qualified Majority and thus shattering the biotech industry's expectations of an EU policy U-turn on GM food and feed [16].
Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland said "This small victory for Ireland and Europe is significant in the context of EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson's pressure for member states to cave in to WTO's claims that we must accept GM food and farming. We expect Ireland's new government will now take active steps to protect Irish farmers and consumers from the GMO invasion."
Ireland's new policy on GMOs
Trevor Sargent said "Fundamentally the issue is a sustainable future. The huge commercial pressure from the United States and some countries in South America for Europe to open up to GM foods is not what the people of Europe want. The consumers of Europe are specifying to their large mutliple retailers that they want GM-free produce. The trouble is that the markets we're trying to export to ‚ particularly in Europe - are adamant: they do not want GM! Up to now they have been saying ëjust make sure it is not grown in Ireland', but now they're saying ëplease don't feed your animals GM feed'. Some of the major supermarkets chains in Italy, France and Britain now actually require labelling that says this produce is fed on GM-free feed. So we have to be able to come up with that and guarantee it. We are at a cross-roads here. We can either go down the road of the Brazilians and have essentially a lower quality product, or else we can continue to make sure we have the high quality product which is going to get us the best price and the best return. So GM is really not any kind of solution to the challenges faced by our farmers, given that the price of their produce, like lamb, have gone down in the past 20 years. The fresh produce people that I'm talking to definitely want GM free. Alot of the farmers in the livestock area definitely want GM-free. The Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, and many of the farmers in the ICMSA and the IFA want GM free. But they also want a national strategy in place to deal with this, and that is what I intend to bring about."
The President of the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA), Jackie Cahill, has called for a 5 year moratorium on GM crops.
Commenting on Monday's vote, Friends of the Earth Europe GM Campaign Coordinator Helen Holder said:
"Member states have already won the right to uphold high standards on food safety and the environment at the WTO. The US had tried to use trade laws to force GMOs into the European market. But this is a clear signal that Member States have put safety and the environment before US trade interests and that the concerns of EU citizens can prevail over formidable lobbying from biotech companies".
Refering to the illegal Herculex GM maize that entered the EU food chain through Ireland and the Netherlands in April [17], Helen Holder said "These contamination cases indicate more than ever just how important it is to show zero tolerance to countries that have lax measures on contamination and to ensure the right to GMO-free food and farming in the EU is upheld. There is a critical need for strict laws on growing GM crops and clear rules on who is liable for the costs of GM contamination."
There is still widespread public concern over the loophole in EU legislation that allows for consumers to remain unaware that they are eating meat and dairy products from animals fed with GMOs. Earlier this year one million Europeans called for labelling of foods from GMO-fed animals.
Notes for editors:
[1] Ireland's abstention contributed to the lack of a Qualified Majority Vote at the EC Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 25 June 2007. The company's authorisation request for Herculex will now be sent an upcoming EU Council meeting on 24 September when Ministers will vote on it a second time.
[2] GM-free Ireland Network: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/
[3] Herculex Rootworm (RW) 59122 maize has been genetically modified by the introduction of a bacterial gene from Bacillus thuringiensis to produce Bt toxins (Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1) so as to make the crop resistant to the Western corn rootworm insect pest. It is also modified by the introduction of a second bacterial gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes to make the crop immune to the broad-spectrum herbicide glufosinate. Virus DNA is added as a "promoter" to turn the bacterial genes on. Every cell of the maize becomes a tiny pesticide factory, and the entire plant is classified as an insecticide in the USA.
[4] For a detailed scientific critique of Herculex GM maize, see "Comments to the application under Regulation 1829/2003 for authorisation of 59122-maize in the European Union" published by Greenpeace, May 2007, available for download at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/herculex/Maize59122Application.pdf (364kb PDF file).
Risk assessments on Herculex submitted to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) by Pioneer/Dow show important differences between animals fed with this GM maize and those fed with conventional maize, including liver weights in females in a 42-day study, and blood parameters following a 90-day rat feeding trial. Effects concerning the blood parameters in the 90-day feeding trial were noticed after a very short time, indicating potential for toxicity in the longer term. In other words, this GM maize could pose risks for human and animal health. Worryingly, EFSA did not look at these results in any detail: [ 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 insect-resistant 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 ].
Friends of the Earth Europe said the the risk assessment was incomplete and failed to act on key evidence which raised the possibility that this GM maize could pose risks for human and animal health.
EFSA has in the past dismissed similar concerns in positive opinions issued on MON863 and NK603 maize, leading to final authorization by the European Commission of these products. But the reliability of these EFSA opinions has been undermined by recent studies by independent scientists showing toxicological effects in both MON863 and NK603 which the EFSA failed to appreciate. EFSA's failures to exert due diligence in GMO risk assessments was raised by Michael O'Callaghan and by Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher in her review of the CRIIGEN paper (see note 13 below) at the briefing on Food Safety and GMOs co-hosted by GM-free Ireland and the EU Parliament Independence/Democracy Group at the EU Parliament Office in Dublin on 15 June 2007.
Compositional differences were also detected in the content of the Herculex GM maize and its kernels.
Despite additional serious concerns that all Bt crops are harmful for non-target organisms including beneficial soil bacteria, wildlife, livestock and humans, there have been virtually no independent analyses on the impact of Bt crops on biodiversity. EFSA has, yet again, ignored this in its Opinion on Herculex GM maize.
EFSA's failure to implement due diligence in its approvals of GMO feed and food has been criticised by the European Council, by the Commission and by NGOs, which have accused EFSA of ignoring significant scientific findings and for being unable to perform long-term environmental and health impact assessments on GMOs.
For details see:
The MON863 case: a chronicle of systematic deception: Greenpeace report, 13 August 2002:http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/herculex/MON863_chronicle.pdf
The EFSA stakeholders challenge ‚ working with civil society:http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/EFSA_stakeholders_challenge.pdf
European Food Safety Authority criticised for GMO bias: ISIS press release, 27 April 2006:http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/EFSA-critique-ISIS.pdf
Commission for more transparency on GMO decisions. EuroActiv.com 12 April 2006:http://www.euractiv.com/en/biotech/commission-transparency-gmo-decisions/article-154355icle-154355
Commission proposes practical improvements to the way the European GMO legislative framework is implemented. Europa Press Release, 12 April 2006:http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/498&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en?reference=IP/06/498&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
European Commissioner Dimas speech at the Conference on GMO co-existence Vienna, 05 April 2006:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/06/224&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en?reference=SPEECH/06/224&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
EU law on the standards and legal requirements for GMO risk assessment is not being respected at present by either EFSA or the European Commission. This could be rectified by:
a. Enforcing a strict, independent and transparent risk assessment of GMOs;
b. Suspending all earlier authorisations until the current system is reviewed;
c. Withdrawing the authorisation granted to MON863 maize, pending further investigation and a re-evaluation of Monsanto's dossier.
[5] GM-free Ireland and Greenpeace found a shipment of animal feed contaminated by the illegal Herculex and other varieties of GM maize being unloaded from a ship which arrived in Dublin port from New Orleans on 2 April. The shipment was accompanied by US lab certificates which claimed the maize gluten was free of Herculex. The Department of Agriculture waited 60 days before taking action, by which time up to 5,313 tonnes of the maize gluten contaminated by the illegal GM corn had already been placed on the market and sold to farmers as fodder which their cattle transform into meat and dairy produce. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac and download GM-free Ireland press release "Irish GM food contamination scandal" at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI-36.pdf
95% of the soya and maize currently imported into Ireland for use as animal feed is genetically modified.
[6] The Irish Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mary Coughlan, issued a written statement to the D·il [Irish parliament] 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". On 3 May 2007, her Department issued a written statement to GM-free Ireland, 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 [oilseed rape] which are not declared as consisting of or containing GM ingredients and have them analysed for the presence of GM material". But on 18 May 2007, the Department admitted that it failed to test the shipment of maize gluten contaminated by the illegal Herculex GM maize which entered Ireland on 2 April before it was placed on the market.
Moreover, Liam Hyde of the Department's Animal Feedingstuffs Section admitted 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. Mr. Hyde also said that all of the Department of Agriculture's records of GM animal feed imports for 2006 have been irretrievably lost due to a "computer database failure" making traceability and liability impossible in the event of related disease in livestock and the human population. (Personal communication from Mr. Hyde by phone to Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland, around 28 March 2007).
[7] As of 2005, worldwide, 10 companies controlled about 50 percent of the global seed business. At the top of the heap are just three companies, Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta. Industry concentration is continuing to proceed apace. Monsanto has since received US antitrust approval to complete its merger with the 11th largest seed company, Delta Pine & Land. All three companies have been snapping up smaller firms at every opportunity.
[8]: If EU ministers cannot agree, the European Commission usually issues its own approval, valid for 10 years, under an undemocratic legal default process known as the Comitology procedure. For many years, EU countries have been unable to secure the majority needed to vote through a new GMO approval. They last agreed to authorise a new GMO product in 1998.
[9] European Commission documents show US pressure to ignore risk assessment concerns and push GMOs ‚ including this GM Maize 'Herculex' of biotech company Pioneer ‚ onto the European market. For details, see the minutes of a meeting between the EU and the US obtained by Friends of the Earth Europe under a Freedom of Information request: http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2007/May30_HH_EU_US_docs.htm http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/FoEE_GMOS_US_pressure_on_EU_brief_May07.pdf
[10] Recent media coverage of GMOs:
*GM crops: 'Point of no return in ten years'. The Scotsman, 26 June 2007. By Sybille de la Hamaide.
*GMO stance hitting feed trade. Irish Farmers Journal, 23 June 2007. By Pat O'Keefe, News Editor.
*Wall defends role in GMO's. Irish Farmers Journal, 23 June 2007. By Pat O'Keefe, News Editor.
*GM-free cost up to € 40m. Irish Examiner, 21 June 2007. By Stephen Cadogan.
*Sargent says GMO-free pledge is a 'huge step'. The Irish Times, 16 June 2007. By Ronan McGreevy.
*Greens fulfill pledge to have Ireland free of GM crops. Irish Independent, 16 June 2007. By Fionnan Sheahan and Senan Molony.
*EU Risks WTO Cases Over Biotech Food, Mandelson Says. Bloomberg, June 14 2007. By Jonathan Stearns.
*Stand by science on GMO foods, EU trade chief says. Reuters, 14 June 2007.
*Ireland aims to become a GMO-free zone: New coalition government adopts all-island GM-free policy; Farming groups agree to explore phasing out GM animal feed. GM-free Ireland Network press release, 14 June 2007.
*EU Split Over Approvals Of Two GMO Maize Types. Reuters, 11 June 2007.
*Monsanto Warns It May Withdraw From Wheat-Seed Market. Business Day (Johannesburg), 7 June 2007. By Neels Blom.
*Don't mention the G word. The Guardian (Eco soundings), June 6 2007. By John Vidal and David Adam.
*US still bullying EU to market GMOs - But avoid the dirty GMO word! advises US official. Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 30 May 2007.
[11] Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of GM foods. By Jeffrey M. Smith. Yes! Books. Fairfield, Iowa, USA, 2007. ISBN 978-0-9729665-2-8. Hardcover, 336 pages, € 23. Available at the Cultivate Centre, 15-19 Essex St. West, Temple Bar, Dublin 8, tel (01) 674 6415 or by mailorder from http://www.geneticroulette.com/.
[12] 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 SÈralini, Dominique Cellier, and Joel Spiroux de Vendomois. Download paper: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/SeralinPaper2007.pdf (124k pdf file.]
See related CRIIGEN press release at http://www.criigen.org/cp_march2007.pdf and video of related press conference at http://www.criigen.org/
Genome Scrambling - Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants. By Allison Wilson, PhD, Jonathan Latham, PhD and Ricarda Steinbrecher, PhD. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, Vol 23, December 2006.
Download Summary: http://www.econexus.info/pdf/ENx-Genome-Scrambling-Summary.pdf (88 kb pdf file) Download Report: http://www.econexus.info/pdf/ENx-Genome-Scrambling-Report.pdf (628 kb pdf file)
[13] Food Safety and GMOs: is the European Food Safety Authority downplaying the health risks of genetically modified food? Briefing co-hosted by the European Parliament Independence/Democracy Group and the GM-free Ireland Network, EU Parliament Office, Dublin, 15 June 2007. Speakers included Kathy Sinnott MEP, Jeffrey Smith (who will launch his new book Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of GM foods), and Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher PhD of EcoNexus, who is part of the legal and scientific team which recently convinced the European Patent Office to revoke Monsanto's species-wide patent on genetically modified soybeans. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/EUP.php
[14] Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association, http://www.icmsa.ie/.
[15] Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, http://www.icsaireland.ie/. For details of the ICSA policy on GMOs, see transcript of speech by ICSA General Secretary Eddie Punch at the Green Ireland conference on branding for food, farming and ecotourism, June 2006: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/E.Punch.pdf
[16] The outcome of the vote was 15 countries in favour (197 votes), 7 against (52 votes), 4 abstentions + Poland absent (96 votes). The votes needed to block the decision was 91.
[17] Announced by Greenpeace and GM-free Ireland. See GM-free Ireland press release http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac/index.php

Extracted from GMWATCH

AUSTRALIAN GM PUSH !!!!!!

2007-07-16T12:00:00.000+10:00

1.Victoria to lift GM ban?
2.GM push vilifies organics
3.Federal bill threatens GM moratoriums
NOTE: Three informative articles on the aggressive campaign being waged in Australia to push in GM and undermine State bans.
---
---
1.Victoria to lift GM ban?
Janet Grogan
Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #717, 14 July 2007
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/717/37244
Three years after extending its moratorium on the commercial growing of genetically modified (GM) crops, the Victorian ALP government appears poised to remove the ban when it expires in February 2008.
State agriculture minister Joe Helper believes that Victoria is now "open-minded" about GM crops and a "careful and considered approach" will be used to determine the impact of GM crops on the market before a decision is made.
Farmers' groups are split. The National Farmers Federation (NFF) has been lured by promises of increased yields for less expense, but the Network of Concerned Farmers sees an erosion of choice for non-GM farmers, with up to 10% additional costs to cover segregation bills alone. The United Dairy Farmers of Victoria voted on June 19 to reverse their support for Victoria's ban on commercial GM canola. In response, consumer groups say that they will vote with their feet and choose non-GM soy or organic alternatives if the ban is lifted.
Federal agriculture minister Peter McGuaran, a supporter of GM crops, was quoted by the May 13 Age as saying: "Farmers have much to gain, particularly in times of drought, from growing GM crops, such as wheat and canola that use less water and herbicides than conventional crops." The same points have been reiterated by NFF chief executive Ben Fargher.
These are emotive words, especially in times of drought, but they are hard to substantiate. There is no GM drought-resistant wheat or canola and development could be 10 years away. Non-GM varieties will be available far sooner. Seventy per cent of GM crops are herbicide resistant, and farmers spray more often and at higher doses, resulting in "super weeds" that demand an increasing amount of chemicals to control them.
Federal minister for trade Warren Truss has repeatedly said that Australian farmers are being "left behind". Yet, according to a 2006 industry-backed report from the International Service for Acquisition of Agro-biotechnology Applications ten years after the introduction of GM crops, just 0.7% of all farmers grew them, and 85% of all GM crops were grown in North and South America.
With Australian GM-free canola enjoying a premium of up to $120 per tonne more than the Winnipeg price it is difficult to see how our farmers are being left behind.
The Victorian government has appointed a three-member GM review panel to examine the economic impact of commercial GM canola on trade. However, the panel appears flawed from the start. The chairperson, Gus Nossal, is a retired medical researcher and a long-time supporter of GM crops and food. Panel member Merna Curnow was an officer of the Victorian Farmers Federation. She also worked for the Grains Research Development Council, which invests in GM promotion. Neither appear to have skills to review the issue.
As Bob Phelps from Gene Ethics said, "The Bracks government has set up a panel to recommend fast tracking GM crops into our environment and onto our plates". On May 22, he called for a review of "new evidence on health and environmental impacts of GM crops and foods since the licences were issued".
There have been few independent GM studies carried out, partly due to a lack of funding, but also because of the difficulty in accessing GM material. Hence the majority of data comes from the GM companies themselves. It is then the responsibility of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to review the data.
WA agriculture minister Kim Chance has said that FSANZ does not adequately assess health impacts of genetically modified crops, and FSANZ spokesperson Lydia Buchtmann agreed it did not conduct trials involving feeding animals or people GM foods. As the May 13 Age editorial stated, "To ask Big Agribusiness about GM is a little like consulting Big Tobacco about the risks of smoking".
One independent study was conducted by Dr Irina Ermakova of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, non-GM soy or non-soy diets prior to conception. Two weeks after birth, 36% of the GM pups weighed less than 20g compared to 6% of the others. Within three weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only three of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group, and three of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls. These results are consistent with other independent studies.
If Victoria does remove its ban, the pressure will be on other states to follow. In WA, there is a push to make GM cotton exempt from the moratorium. Opponents see it as a Trojan Horse that will serve to pave the way for GM canola and other crops.
In WA, the Say No to GMO campaign has brought together the Conservation Council of WA, the Organic Growers Association and the Network of Concerned Consumers. A petition asking that the GM moratorium be extended 10 years beyond 2008 has gathered almost 4000 signatures and was recently tabled in parliament.
This type of consumer-led resistance is evident across the country. As Phelps explained, "The citizen campaign to keep Victoria GM-free is even stronger since the turnaround as their foolish decision is based on empty promises about the profit potential of GM canola".
With outstanding issues to consider such as segregation, contamination, liability, labeling, consumer rejection, health, environment and economics, one has to wonder why we are even having this debate.
[To get involved in Say No to GMO email Janet on jan60gro@yahoo.com or phone Maggie on (08) 9420 7260.]
---
---
2.GM push vilifies organics
Annolies Truman
Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #717, 14 July 2007
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/717/37243
Recent attacks on the organic food industry are about discrediting it to soften up the public to accept genetically modified (GM) crops, Dr Maggie Lilith of the Conservation Council of WA and the Say No to GMO campaign told Green Left Weekly.
"The spate of recent claims that organic food is riskier and linked to health scares seems to have come from proponents of GM and those with a vested interest", said Lilith, who is also a member of the Fremantle Organic Growers Association. "The claims about the safety of organic foods are unfounded and aim to spread misinformation to the public."
On April 12, a syndicated piece by Bettina Arndt entitled "Organic myths pose real risks to health" appeared in newspapers across Australia. The article is a savage attack on the organic food industry and consumers who choose its products.
"The organic food industry is booming with ever more people deluded into thinking that paying two or three times more for organic food products will provide them with healthier, safer food", stated Arndt.
In an attempt to portray organics as backward and unscientific, Arndt quotes British Lord Dick Taverne as saying, "What is most worrying about the whole organic product movement is the underlying notion that scientific progress is inevitably bad and we are all better off reverting to primitive, 'natural' ways of doing things."
Lilith disputes this unscientific claim. "Organic systems rely on modern scientific understanding of ecology and soil science as well as traditional methods of crop rotations to ensure fertility and weed and pest control", she said.
"Moreover, organic production aims to be sustainable and reduce dependence on non-renewable resources. The soil is not depleted as under conventional agribusiness practices. Organic produce is not covered in toxic chemicals as no pesticides or artificial chemicals are used. Animals are not treated with synthetic growth hormones or drugs."
Arndt also quotes Taverne glorifying GM crops: "If people were really worried about the effects of pesticides in farming on wildlife or human health, they should promote pest-resistant GM crops, which reduce pesticide use … The solid scientific support for the safety and efficiency of GM crops means nothing to blinkered souls who trust instincts over science."
Janet Grogan, a leading activist with the Say No to GMO campaign, described Arndt's article as "a thinly veiled pro-GM rant against organic foods".
"It was misinformed and biased. Arndt cites two cases to prove the dangers of eating organic foods, neither actually linked to organically-derived produce."
"What's more, her list of experts comes from pro-GM groups. Lord Taverne is the chairman of the pro-GM lobby group the Association of Sense in Science. His book was lambasted in the Guardian newspaper as … mingling myth with fact."
A month later, on May 16, an article appeared in the West Australian, promoting the idea of growing GM cotton in the Ord River district of northern WA and attacking organic growers.
A key GM scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, claimed opponents of the scheme were largely "self-serving organic farmers and ill-informed environmental activists". Peacock was instrumental in developing GM cotton while working at the CSIRO. Some 100 hectare trials of GM cotton along the Ord have already been approved by the WA government.
Lilith is scathing about Peacock's criticism. "It's the pro-GM groups who are self-serving, interested only in making profits at the expense of farmers and community health. Moreover, GM cotton should be considered a Trojan horse as it leaves the door open for other unwanted GM crops."
Another attack on organics followed soon after. The May 22 edition of the Bulletin contained an exclusive titled "The Truth About Organic Food". Two large photos of shopping baskets graphically illustrate the expense of organic food over conventional.
Lilith contests the claim that organic food is expensive, saying, "A lot of supermarket pre-packaged food costs far more than organic staples. The typical household spends far more on junk food, or alcohol, or take-aways than on fruit and vegetables."
"The Bulletin article also ignores the nutritional benefits of organic produce", Lilith told GLW.
"Scientific evidence shows that fresh organic produce is more nutritious than non-organic food, containing higher nutrient levels, more vitamins, minerals, cancer-fighting antioxidants and enzymes."
But the Bulletin article does concede "consumption of organics is growing at 25% to 44% per year, outstripping the rise in organic food production at 6% to 15% … in 2000, there were 7.6 million hectares under organic management, with a value of $19m. By 2006, that had grown to 12.3 million hectares valued at $400 million."
According to Annie Kavanagh, president of the Organic Growers Association WA, suppliers are finding it difficult to keep up with the demand from consumers.
Across Australia, in addition to the 12.3 million hectares under organic cultivation, a further 1.1 million hectares land is being prepared for organic certification. In 2006, there were 176 listed organic processors and producers in WA, compared to 58 in 2002. This shows a 300% increase in four years, which reflects the increasing demand for organic produce.
Perhaps this trend explains why the GM lobby is so keen to demolish the credibility of organic agriculture.
---
---
3.Federal bill threatens GM moratoriums
Annolies Truman
Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #717, 14 July 2007
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/717/37242
A bill recently pushed through federal parliament has the potential to threaten state moratoriums on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by granting new powers to the federal agriculture minister, a WA anti-GMO activist told Green Left Weekly.
Say No to GMO campaigner Janet Grogan is worried the Gene Technology Amendment (GTA) bill will be used to bypass state regulations and community consultation to introduce unwanted GM crops.
"At stake is the future of the Ord River, in the east Kimberley region of Western Australia, which has been marked out for GM cotton by bio-tech companies Monsanto and Bayer CropScience. The federal government has vowed to pressure WA to lift its ban on GM crops as part of negotiations surrounding development of the second stage of the Ord", Grogan said.
At the government's Northern Australian Land and Water Taskforce inaugural meeting on June 29, the Ord River region was high on the agenda, with GM cotton tabled as a first crop. While WA agriculture minister Kim Chance is on record committing his government to maintain the moratorium on the commercial production of GM crops, the state government has recently given approval for a 100-hectare GM cotton research trial on the Ord.
A number of consumer and farmer groups and NGOs are campaigning for the current moratorium on GM crops to remain for another 10 years after it expires in 2008. "But even if we succeed in convincing the WA government, the GTA bill would enable the federal government to override its decision", Grogan said.
"Under the bill's new emergency provisions, the federal agriculture minister could use drought or pest problems to justify the release of GM crops, with no requirement for a safety assessment or approval from the states", Grogan explained. "The bill also removes the requirement for community consultation when dealings may pose significant risks to the health and safety of people or the environment, and when genetically engineered [GE] crops are field-tested."
Grogan said the federal government seems absolutely determined to bring GE crops to market. "It has invested millions of dollars in GE crops through CSIRO and is calling on all the states to lift their bans [on GE food crops]. This pro-GM agenda has permeated many of the government’s agencies including Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). So far, FSANZ has rubber-stamped as safe every GE crop that has come across its desk."
"The government appears to be yielding to pressure from the US to lift trade barriers", she said. "At the moment 85% of GM crops are grown in North and South America. If the federal government decides that, due to the drought, the Ord is the new food basket of Australia, there may be little that the state government, or the people of WA, can do to prevent the introduction of GM crops", Grogan concluded.

Extracted from: GMWATCH

AUSTRALIA: GM MILK ANGER

2007-07-09T15:09:00.000+10:00

Milk is being produced on south-west Victorian dairy farms using GM feeds without the public's knowledge, reveals newspaper The Standard. Director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Dr Judy Carman, said there had been no long-term testing on livestock fed GM feeds, or on consumers eating GM foods or meat produced with GM feeds.

1.GM content a threat to market: farmer
2.GM MILK ANGER
---
1.[GM] Content a threat to market: farmer
ALEX JOHNSON The Standard, June 7 2007 http://the.standard.net.au/articles/2007/06/07/1181089193898.html
A CONCERNED farmer said the future of Australia's dairy industry depended on whether farmers rejected genetically modified cattle feed.
The Network of Concerned Farmers spokesman Geoffrey Carracher, who runs an irrigation property near Minimay growing white clover seed, called on dairy farmers not to use GM cotton to feed their cattle.
The network is funded by a number of farmers and local councils, including West Wimmera Shire.
"The world is our market for Australia at the moment," Mr Carracher said.
"With the introduction of GMs into Australia, our opportunities throughout the world will be reduced.
"New Zealand will pick up our milk market if we do it."
"There has been no testing of GM crops against non-GM crops so we don't know what their comparisons are, their yields (or) their agronomy."
He said the crops, modified to be resistant to pests and diseases, might not bring the benefits some farmers expect.
"They're set up for corporate profits, not farmers' profits."
---
2.GM MILK ANGER
TERRY SIM The Standard, June 7 2007http://the.standard.net.au/articles/2007/06/07/1181089193892.html
[image caption: The beauty of canola fields in bloom do little to mask fears over genetically modified plants being fed to dairy cows.]
MILK is being produced on south-west Victorian dairy farms using genetically modified feeds without the public's knowledge. Now consumers are demanding to know more.
The Standard can reveal that a range of feeds with a GM content have been used on the region's farms.
Feeds with GM content include cottonseed meal, soybean and canola meal. Consumers are concerned about the impact on milk and a lack of clear labelling. Studies found no impact on foods generated from GM-fed livestock or GM crops.
Member for Western Province John Vogels said dairy factories should admit "the GM genie is long gone".
Mr Vogels said it was time to scrap Victoria's moratorium on GM crops and ensure proper risk assessments were in place.
He said south-west dairy farmers were using GM cottonseed to produce milk and other farmers were using GM canola and soymeal in cattle rations.
"If 90 per cent of cotton grown is GM and I've seen farmers feeding cottonseed to their dairy cows, then the (GM) genie is long out of the bottle," Mr Vogels said.
Mr Vogels' comments come as the Network of Concerned Farmers starts a media campaign against feeding genetically modified crops in animals' feed.
Anti-GM campaigner and director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research Dr Judy Carman said it was a `"big leap in logic to open up the doors" because farmers were already feeding GM feed to their cattle.
"If it was widely known that there was a milk company in Australia that was getting milk from cows being fed GM feeds I think you would find consumers would switch brands.
"There would be some concern - it is just that they (consumers) don't know."
Dr Carman said there had been no long-term testing on livestock fed GM feeds, consumers eating GM foods or meat grown with GM feeds. There was inadequate crop segregation, product labelling and knowledge of contamination levels to protect consumers'
interests and cottonseed oil did not have to be labelled as a GM product in Australia, she said.
Anti-GM dairy farmer in Dixie, Andrea Balcombe, has decided not to give potentially GM feeds to her cows. She said labelling laws meant consumers were not able to choose non-GM over GM products.
Mr Vogels said despite the "scare campaign" of the organics industry and anti-GM protesters, he did not believe consumers should be concerned about feeding GM feed to livestock. Research had shown there were no ill effects from people consuming GM foods, he said.
The "hypocrisy" of the State Government's moratorium on commercial GM crops was exposed by the use of cottonseed oil in vegetable oil formulations for cooking, Mr Vogels said. About a third of vegetable oil is made from cottonseed, he said.
A spokesperson for Victorian Agriculture Minister Joe Helper said industry sectors could take their own steps to prevent farmers using GM feedstocks.
"That a small amount of GM feedstocks are used for stock has relatively little bearing on the forthcoming review of the moratorium on GM canola," the minister's spokesperson said.

Mothers rally against "GM" milk (19/6/2007)
Mothers rally against "GM" milkBreaking Rural News : DAIRYNorth Queensland Register, 19 June 2007(SOURCE: Extract from full story in Stock & Land, Vic, June 21)http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=43211
Mothers and children will rally outstide the United Dairyfarmers of Victora (UDV) conference in Melbourne on Tuesday to voice their opposition to milk produced from cows fed genetically modified (GM) grain.
Mothers Against GE (MAdGE) spokeswoman, Glenda Lindsay, said the group – a newly formed coalition of anti-GM mothers, grandmothers and children –wanted to show farmers, Victorian consumers didn’t want genetically engineered (GE) or GM milk.
"We want to feed our families food guaranteed to be safe, local and GM free," Ms Lindsay said.
"There are no peer reviewed studies that prove it is safe to drink milk from cows fed GM products."
Ms Lindsay said the group wanted the ban on GM canola in Victoria to be extended permanently.
"It makes no sense to grow GM crops when most polls show shoppers don't want GM foods," she said.
UDV members will today vote on a resolution for the UDV to reverse its anti-GM position and support choice of GM technology in the dairy industry,"
SOURCE: Extract from full story in Stock & Land, Vic, June 21.

There's a Lot You Don't Know About What's in Your Food

2007-07-05T19:01:00.000+10:00

EXTRACT: ...the industry has been very powerful in the media... a huge number of Americans believe that genetically engineered food is feeding the world, that it's increasing nutrition, that it's making better flavored food, is creating drought resistant crops, it's curing kids in Africa. This is complete science fiction. ... It's a marginal technology at best -- it is not curing anything, it is not feeding anything. (item 1)
---
---
1.There's a Lot You Don't Know About What's in Your Food By Vanja Petrovic AlterNet, July 3 2007 http://www.alternet.org/story/55847/
Nearly three quarters of all processed foods contain genetically engineered ingredients, but you'd never know it by reading the back of your kid's cereal box or that pint of ice cream you've been craving. Rather than being relegated to its own supermarket section, this food sits unlabeled on grocery store shelves, allowing a handful of transnational biotech companies to profit handsomely as consumers shop blindly.
In his new book, Your Right to Know: Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in Your Food, Andrew Kimbrell explores the risks of this technology and what genetic engineering means to our health, the environment and the future of agriculture.
Although Kimbrell's book aims primarily to educate, it is also an easy-to-use activist guide on how to identify -- and avoid -- genetically engineered foods.
Andrew Kimbrell is founder and executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Center for Food Safety and the International Center for Technology Assessment. As an author, lawyer, and activist for more than 20 years, Kimbrell has been at the forefront of legal and grassroots efforts to protect the environment and promote sustainable agricultural production methods. His written work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Harper's. He has testified at numerous congressional and regulatory hearings, and in 1994, Utne Reader named Kimbrell as one of the world's leading 100 visionaries.
AlterNet talked with Kimbrell via telephone.
Vanja Petrovic: How did you become interested in genetically engineered food?
Andrew Kimbrell: I became very interested in genetic engineering in general; it stemmed from my early work in appropriate technology. There was an E.F. Schumacher book, Small is Beautiful -- great book, everyone should read it. What Schumacher was saying is that we're going to have to devolve our technologies and change our economics to fit nature, otherwise we're going to destroy ourselves. And I thought that was inevitable and became part of that. And it wasn't until genetic engineering that I realized that some people were saying, "Listen, let's not change our technology or our economic system to fit nature, let's change nature -- including human nature -- so that it fits our technology and our economic system."
So, for example what we have with genetic engineering, if you spray herbicide on crops, it kills them, it kills everything green, it doesn't just kill the weeds, it kills the crops. So, the idea would be, as weeds become resistant to herbicides, to stop using them, and find other ways of weed and pest control. But that didn't fit the needs of ... the chemical companies. That would mean less of their product. So, instead of changing their technology and economics to fit nature, they said "let's change plants so they can withstand huge amounts of our chemicals" -- herbicides -- and four out of every five acres of genetically engineered plants in this country and in the world are planted solely because they can tolerate these herbicides.
Petrovic: Why did you choose to write this book now?
Kimbrell: Actually, I didn't choose to write this book right now. I wish I could have stopped my fingers three years ago.
But, there are a number of reasons I wrote this book. One, the industry has been very powerful in the media. It has been able to influence the traditional media. So, a huge number of Americans believe that genetically engineered food is feeding the world, that it's increasing nutrition, that it's making better flavored food, is creating drought resistant crops, it's curing kids in Africa. This is complete science fiction. ... It's a marginal technology at best -- it is not curing anything, it is not feeding anything.
As a matter of fact, as we've seen in corn and soy, we have seen actual yield decreases because of genetic engineering. Not an increase, no more vitamins. We've seen, actually, FDA studies that show that it actually decreases vitamin content in food. So, why is it popular? Why do farmers use it? Because it's very convenient. You don't have to spot spray your herbicide just on the weed, you can, for the first time, aerial spray your herbicides over your entire crop and it won't kill your crop, it'll just kill the weeds. Although, those weeds are becoming more and more resistant and now we're having to use more and more.
Petrovic: What are the dangers of genetically engineered food?
Kimbrell: Genetically engineered food is the first really artificially lab created food that we have. Basically, you (the scientist) are putting foreign bacteria, foreign viral chains, foreign anti-biotic resistant genes into each cell of every food. So, every cell of every genetically engineered food, every one, has a novel bacteria, has novel viral promoters, has a novel genetic construct whether it be the herbicide tolerant gene or the Bt, and has an anti-biotic marker system.
So each one of these, this genetic set, which is completely new and is placed at random really within each cell within each genetically engineered food, brings with it threats. Those threats are documented by the FDA, by the good scientists there -- not the policy people who forgot to listen to them -- and the risks are: it could take a nontoxic food and make it toxic. ... It can create new human allergies ... significantly reduce the vitamin content in the food, and ... there has been peer-reviewed scientific evidence that it can be harmful to the immune system.
The environmental risks are that it's biological pollution. We know now, we've seen over and over again that this is not simply a tool for the farmer, this is an evasive living pollution. It pollutes conventional, it pollutes organic, makes these farmers unable to sell these crops to the European market, to the organic market, and it creates the gene jump to create super weeds. In the case of fish, documented, peer-reviewed science out of Purdue University says that the release of these genetically modified fish, because of the unexpected changes in these fish, could create complete extinction for species like salmon and stripped bass.
Petrovic: Any social risks?
Kimbrell: Yes, there are social risks. What happens here, and we've documented this in the book, is that because of Monsanto (a St. Louis-based chemical company) having farmers signing technology use agreements, what you're basically seeing is farmers becoming tenant farmers for Monsanto. And farmers who have been polluted -- unintentionally polluted -- are being sued, and have been sued by Monsanto. Farmers who did not understand, who did not sign a technology use agreement, and did not understand what this technology was about, are being sued. Saving their seeds, cleaning their seeds is becoming an illegal activity where they are faced with hundreds of thousands worth of damages because Monsanto filed lawsuits.
This is really kind of corporate terrorism against America's farmers. ... It's really (destroyed) the social fabric of a lot of America's farmland and it's amazing to me that this has gone unreported.
Petrovic: Is organic farming in danger of disappearing?
Kimbrell: No, I don't think that organic farming is in danger of disappearing. One of the myths that the book also tries to bust is that people think, "Oh, Pandora's Box is open, we're over, we're doomed." Not true at all. We, the Center for Food Safety, and a number of other organizations who we work very closely with, have been very successful in stopping genetically engineered wheat. ...We have stopped primarily genetically engineered rice, we have stopped genetically engineered fish, and that's in this country. Around the world, these foods are being rejected.
Petrovic: In your book, you talk about Tom and Gail Wiley -- North Dakota farmers who grow over a thousand acres of food-grade soy. When they landed a contract with Japan, the prospective buyers tested the crop and they discovered that the 1.37 percent of the soy had been contaminated with of genetically engineered seeds. Does the Wiley's story ring true for a lot of farmers in America?
Kimbrell: A lot of farmers are facing that and worse. At least they got their crop ... We have literally hundreds of thousands of farmers in the South that literally cannot plant rice because of rice contamination. ... So, yeah, it has become and it will become an increasing problem because it's living pollution. These contaminations to the extent that we now know -- and our government seems to think this -- are coming from very small field trials. Even if (only a few species are affected) ... when it's released, since it's biological pollution, it disseminates, grows and mutates.
Petrovic: Why has three quarters of agricultural genetic diversity been lost in the past century?
Kimbrell: We've seen a devastating loss ... that has happened because of hybrid monoculture, that has happened because of industrial agriculture. In my book, Fatal Agriculture, we have all these experts who explain how that happened. It is the monoculture that we see in our crops even before genetic engineering even came on board in '96, '97. And that's already a tragedy.
It's not like genetic engineering is the only bad thing that ever happened in agriculture. That hybridization of monoculture is bad in a number of ways, but the loss of diversity is also a loss of food security. If you have one type of corn, one type of tomato, one type of wheat out there and there is a corn blithe [blight???] or a wheat blithe there is no genetic diversity to protect that crop. We saw that with the corn blithe a couple of decades ago and we had to get corn from South America to save us ... Genetic engineering, of course, is monoculture on steroids... It's the ultimate monoculture, but it's also an unnatural monoculture because it has genetic material in it that's never been in that plant ever before. I mean, you're not only crossing species, you're crossing phyla.
Petrovic: Will we reach a point when there is no genetic diversity?
Kimbrell: We'll never reach the zero point because there will always be some natural mutation, but I think we're going in the opposite direction now. We have tremendous efforts now to save local seeds; that's part of one of the documentaries that I'm making, we're showing that there really is a future of food. That's very encouraging.
But obviously if we were to continue down the path of industrial genetically engineered agriculture, yeah, you would get to a point where literally -- and we're almost there in some cases -- where literally you have one variety, or two varieties of lettuce, one variety of corn, one variety of tomato, where it'll be so monoculture because that's the easiest one for them to grow in large quantities, the easiest one for them to store, and the easiest one for them to sell.
We're at a real crossroads for the future of food. ... We're either going to continue down the industrial path all the way to genetically engineering our food so that it literally becomes nothing but a tool of industrial agriculture, including withstanding all these poisons. Or, we're going to go down the organic and beyond way, which says no to genetic engineering, no to irradiation, no to this massive alteration at the atomic and genetic level.
Petrovic: What changes would you like to see the FDA make?
Kimbrell: Oh, thank you for bringing up my favorite agency. ... There is no mandatory testing, there is no mandatory labeling, what they did set up is what they call a voluntary consulting process. So, if you're putting a new genetically engineered food on the market, you can choose if you wish, to consult with the FDA if you have issues. ... Can you imagine this with drugs? If you tell the drug companies, "Oh, no, you don't have to test, you don't have to label your drug, but if you think it's going to kill somebody, you should probably consult us."
I mean, no one would accept that. No one would accept that with car safety, no one would accept that with virtually any aspect of what's going on, yet we're accepting it with genetically modified food? ... That really is a corporate coup d'etat.
Petrovic: With the help of this book can people completely avoid genetically engineered food and for how long?
Kimbrell: Yes, with the help of the book, if they read the book carefully, and follow the instructions, they will be able to avoid virtually all -- there may be some enzymes in cheese, for example, some very, very minor enzyme stuff -- but for all practical purposes, yes, they will be able to avoid GMOs.
The intriguing part of your question is for how long. And we will, on the Center for Food Safety Web site have continuing updates on what's going on. ... For now this will protect you, but that shouldn't make us feel good about our government. If it had mandatory labeling you wouldn't need this book. You wouldn't need to take all this time and effort because they should have done it for you.
Petrovic: Why do you think topics that you cover in this book, such as herbicide-resistant super weeds, super pests, and the dangers to organic farming don't show up in the mainstream media?
Kimbell: You should look at their advertisers. I mean if you look at the advertisers of even National Public Radio -- they're not allowed to have advertisers, but they have underwriters -- you'll see major biotechnology companies. ... And I also think there is a "gee-whiz" quality, particularly in America, that anything that seems technological and new is automatically better.
Petrovic This book is different from other books on genetic engineering in that it's much more practical and accessible. What was the thought process behind that?
Kimbrell: There's been a lot of books out there that are really good, but let's face it a lot of people had a hard time getting through high school biology. A lot of people have not been spending a lot of time on biology. So, we wanted to present it in a very accurate way, and that's why the whole book is exhaustively footnoted ... however, we wanted to present it in a way that would be fun, interesting and I think very beautiful, I hope you agree. I think it's very attractive, very interesting, very engaging and after all, that's what we're about. We wanted people to understand and present this in a very interesting way.
Vanja Petrovic is an editorial intern with AlterNet.

GM Food: The People versus Victoria

2007-06-08T21:46:00.000+10:00

GM Food: The People versus Victoria By: Katherine Wilson
Friday 8 June 2007

When Sydney Greenpeace staffers John Hepburn and Louise Sales took the train to Melbourne to meet a small group of campaigners last weekend, things were looking shaky. The group had learned that the Victorian Government intended to overturn bans on genetically manipulated (GM) food crops. By media accounts, it was a done deal.

Gene contamination knows no borders, so other States may have no choice but to follow. As the group — from rural, health and environment sectors — shivered in a room in 60L Green Building, Hepburn plotted a whiteboard map of players on both sides. Things were looking lop-sided.

‘It’s not bad,’ he said.

On the pro-GM side was State Treasurer and Innovations Minister John Brumby, a fierce GM food advocate. Below him was Agriculture Minister Joe Helper, by name and nature. Rubbing shoulders with them were Premier Steve Bracks, CSIRO, the DPI, and most of the media.

A complex of industry lobbyists followed — including the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) — and their PR arms, like the IPA’s Australian Environment Foundation (not to be confused with the citizen-supported Australian Conservation Foundation). Driving these were multinationals Bayer and Monsanto, leading the vastly-funded gene technology industry.

And on it went. A squad of vocal scientists in receipt of GM funds were plotted alongside the panel appointed to review the bans. On the panel: the lovable Sir Gus Nossal, who has spoken cautiously in support of GM food crops, and Merna Curnow, who represents the pro-GM Grains Research Development Corporation. (Not much is known about the third panelist, Christine Forster.)

Finally, there was Australia’s Chief Scientist, the formidable Jim Peacock: friend of John Howard, founder of GM companies, lodger of contentious GM patents, who recently called those opposing GM foods ‘self-serving … unprincipled minorities.’

If the whiteboard’s pro-GM camp reeked of fiscal and political power, the GM-free side had people power. Celebrity chefs Margaret Fulton, Charmaine Solomon, Maggie Beer and Stefano Di Pieri sat alongside nutritionist and biochemist Dr Rosemary Stanton, epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman, medical scientist Professor Stephen Leeder, and erstwhile CSIRO soil scientist Dr Maarten Stapper, who claimed to have been sacked for speaking out about the dangers of GM crops.

Supporting them were health and environment groups and, well, most people. In every poll taken to date, the public is overwhelmingly opposed to GM food. So are an even larger majority of polled farmers, who don’t want GM food crops.

Finally, there were allies like celebrated geneticist Dr David Suzuki, who has said: ‘Any scientist or politician who tells you [GM] foods are safe is either very stupid or lying.’

‘Perhaps we’re being optimistic,’ said Hepburn. 'But it's looking good.'

Later, at GM-free restaurant The Curry Pot, Sales said she was feeling confident.

Across town, in the pro-GM camp, things looked just as shaky. The IPA — exposed in The Age as sponsored by Monsanto — had hosted drinks and hors d’œuvres in a warm Parliament room, as part of a forum to promote an end to GM bans. The forum was endorsed by three MPs including Labor’s young Luke Donnellan — which raised eyebrows. The IPA, famous for tobacco-lobbying, Murray-crisis denial and climate change skepticism, ‘was one of Kennett’s key backers, so their involvement with a Labor MP will not have gone unnoticed,’ remarked Labor staffer Chris Anderson.

I RSVPd to attend the IPA forum, but was told it was full. Tammy Lobato, Victorian State Labor MP for Gembrook, who did attend, told me:

It wasn’t well-attended by MPs. The IPA wheeled out the usual GM promises. [The IPA’s] Jennifer Marohasy said the bans were ‘irresponsible’, and were ‘killing’ Victoria’s canola industry. The next day I opened my copy of The Weekly Times to learn that Victoria now has record high yields of canola.

***

Mine isn’t a balanced and disinterested account of this issue. But to the best of my knowledge, it’s a fair and truthful one. As Robert Manne wrote last year in The Monthly, one side has gained 'an altogether undeserved importance.’ He was speaking about climate change skeptic (carbon lobby) scientists, not pro-GM scientists, but the GM debate is even more distorted.

So much so that the issue is framed not as ‘industry interest versus public interest,’ but as ‘Science versus Luddites.’ How many Australians are aware of the hordes of scientists — geneticists, agronomists, epidemiologists, toxicologists, cancer pathologists, soil biologists — who vehemently warn against GM food? How many are aware that, despite rhetoric of drought-tolerant GM crops flooding our media, no such crop has been commercially developed or even field-trialled? Has any journalist questioned why chemical giants Bayer and Monsanto refuse to produce empirical, peer-reviewed evidence to back utopian claims (greater long-term yields, fewer chemicals, feed the world, tolerate drought, boost the economy, save malnourished children) for patented GM food crops?

Have they questioned the billions of public, private and philanthropist dollars invested in GM duds — CSIRO’s non-browning potato, its weevil-resistant field pea, the Flavr Savr tomato, banned terminator seeds, Golden Rice, and so on?

The two rats pictured are the same age. The smaller one's mother was fed genetically manipulated food. Image thanks to Dr Irina Ermakova.

After the bans were put in place four years ago, I undertook a content analysis of all newspaper articles about GM in Australia’s canola-growing States as a postgrad research project. I looked at who was quoted, and I followed the money. Without exception, quoted scientists (many claiming ‘scientific consensus’ about GM) had received funds from biotech companies, sponsored think tanks, or GM grant and regulatory bodies. Most who made safety claims had no relevant expertise. Not one of the adverse research results or dissenting scientists — and there are many — was reported.

So when GeneEthics (a network of farmers, scientists, foodies and concerned citizens) failed to get studies showing negative impacts of GM into media reports, its supporters raised enough money to buy a series of advertisements in the Grains Research and Development Council's magazine, Ground Cover. After publishing one ad, Ground Cover, dependent on big agribusiness dollars, cancelled five subsequent GeneEthics ads. ‘The GRDC is funded by farmers and taxpayers, yet we can’t even buy space in their journal. This was the only way of reaching an audience of 50,000 graingrowers,’ said GeneEthics executive director Bob Phelps. As Jeffrey Smith’s Seeds of Deception documents, this is the norm for scientists worldwide who attempt to publish research showing the negative impacts of GM. The free market of ideas, says Phelps, is free not just to those who can afford it, but to those who agree with it.

***

When West Australian graingrower Julie Newman heard about Victoria’s plans, she prepared for combat. Newman isn’t one of Jim Peacock’s ‘unprincipled… self-interested organic farmers.’ She’s a conventional, broadacre, monocrop farmer with a 10,000 hectare wheat property. She owns one of the largest seed-grading factories in WA, and she heads the national Network of Concerned Farmers. Many public stoushes with figures like Jim Peacock, and threats allegedly made against her family by big agribusiness players famous for their dirty tricks, have made her battle-hardened. She’s not prepared to lose this one.

Still, when Newman heard Victorian Agriculture Minister Joe Helper’s claim that introducing GM will give choice to farmers, she groaned.

‘Farmers don’t have a choice if their crops — or the environment — are contaminated, but we have to suffer the consequences. Agribusiness giants, not farmers, should be liable for economic losses from the introduction of GM. But this has been rejected by GM companies, by our chief scientist, and by our Federal Government. They want to make money out of farmers, but they don’t want to compensate us when it goes wrong.’

Newman says the widely-reported spin of greater yields from GM crops isn’t backed by evidence. In a long-term study of official US Government data, agronomist Dr Charles Benbrook reported: ‘The evidence is now overwhelming and indisputable that average yields of [GM] Roundup-ready varieties are about 4-6 per cent less than conventional varieties.’ Benbrook warned: ‘Australia should avoid the problems and market losses that the US experienced with GM.’

Here, his warnings went largely unreported.

As did reports that the US lost $12 billion when Europe refused its GM corn. A recent report by the Canadian’s National Farmers Union (Canada lost its EU canola market to Australia because of GM) says: ‘While the benefits [of GM] are questionable, risks and costs are real. Consumers are rejecting GM foods. Markets in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere are closing and domestic markets are likewise threatened. This is driving prices down. Closing markets and falling prices threaten to overwhelm any small, short-term economic benefits that GM crops or livestock may offer.’

Armed with even newer information, Newman is heading for Victoria.

Consumer groups, too, are mobilising. Australia refuses to label GM food, or food using GM process, so if the bans are lifted, there’s no choice. It’s easy to figure why. Customer demand forced US Starbucks and Walmart (the US's biggest retailer) to drop dairy products made from GM growth-hormone treated animals. It forced US Safeway to take GM milk off its shelves.

UK customer demand forced Sainsbury’s to eliminate GM ingredients from its own-brand products, and Marks & Spencer removed them altogether. Even the canteen of Monsanto, the chemical giant at the forefront of pro-GM lobbying, banned GM food ‘in response to concern raised by our customers,’ according to a BBC report.

In Australia, chains like The Pancake Parlour reject imported GM ingredients, as do the kitchens of upmarket restaurants like The Grand Mildura and Café EQ at Melbourne’s Southbank.

‘The vast majority of customers in cafés and food stores that I have spoken to have been very skeptical regarding GM foods,’ says food researcher Sun Hyland. ‘It’s very clear to most people that big GM companies like Monsanto are primarily motivated by profit, not by a desire to make the world a better place.’

Her views are echoed by nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton, who said: ‘Claims that GM foods are essential to feeding the world population are absurd.’ (Claims that GM crops could improve nutrition in third world countries have also been comprehensively discredited.)

Rod Barbey, who runs Bcoz restaurant in Melbourne’s leafy east, is among those gearing up to oppose lifting the ban. ‘Chefs have a responsibility to health, environmental and sustainable practices,’ he says. Recent (non-industry) studies link GM food with serious dangers not just from horizontal gene transfer or antibiotic marker resistance, but from novel, incorrectly-folded proteins resulting from the process of GM.

In an ANU experiment, CSIRO’s GM field peas were found to cause serious adverse effects in animals. In the UK, world-renowned toxicologist Dr Arpad Pusztai fed potatoes to two groups of rats. Those fed GM potatoes had damaged immune systems and organs and were more vulnerable to disease than the control groups. (Pusztai’s study was widely smeared, but has been vindicated by independent scientists.) In a Russian experiment, Dr Irina Ermakova fed soy to two groups of pregnant rats as part of their diet. Pups from the rats fed GM soy died at much higher rates and had stunted growth, when compared to the control group.

Australian epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman says: ‘Many scientifically valid concerns are raised by independent scientists worldwide about the safety of these foods. GM foods were initially approved as safe as a result of a political directive which overrode the warnings of the US Food and Drug Administration’s own experts.’

She says money is rarely directed to sound experimental design. Instead, our health bodies are ‘relying on company data. But even within these experiments, which are limited in their ability to pick up health problems, some adverse effects were found.’ In Australia, GM food has been assessed as safe according to US standards that are ‘full of unsound scientific assumptions, rife with careless science, and arrogantly dismissive of valid concerns,’ according to University of California geneticist, Professor Patrick Brown.

But despite mounting new evidence, and despite scientists worldwide gathering in Brussels next week to argue the scientific case for Europe to ban GM foods, Australian States’ forthcoming GM ban reviews can accept objections on marketing grounds only. Still, if Australia’s shoppers, diners, chefs and overseas markets have any say in the democratic process, marketing grounds alone would see the bans stay in place.

Which is what GM-free campaigners are counting on. They hope citizens Australia-wide will make submissions (letters, documents, studies) to Victoria’s review panel, because if Victoria keeps its bans, other States should follow. A tough battle is ahead. But despite reports of done deals among agribusiness powerbrokers and pollies, the campaigners hope that the customer is always right.

CSIRO 'dumps' anti-GM expert

2007-05-28T13:34:00.000+10:00

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.

GM does not feed the world

2007-05-24T14:36:00.000+10:00

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

Eating genetically modified food is gambling with your health

2007-05-24T14:23:00.000+10:00

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.

IRELAND'S GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD SCANDAL

2007-05-23T18:20:00.000+10:00

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

ORGANIC ATTACK! - INTRODUCTION

2007-05-19T14:32:00.000+10:00

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.

The Biotech Brigade

2007-05-19T14:10:00.000+10:00

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
CORE CEI
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 Policy PG Economics
American Soybean Association (ASA)
National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)

Research shows huge variation in Bt toxin in GM maize (MON810) (16/5/2007)

2007-05-19T14:06:00.000+10:00

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.

Organic Food the Only Option for a Healthier You

2007-05-18T14:16:00.000+10:00

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.

Talk about the media being BIASED!!!!!!!!

2007-05-18T14:11:00.000+10:00

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.

Is it cruel to eat Certified organic meat? Some claim it is still animal cruelty !!!!

2007-05-18T14:06:00.000+10:00

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.

Is Organic Food REALLY expensive ?

2007-05-18T13:52:00.000+10:00

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

Are Genetically Engineered Foods Dangerous?

2007-05-18T13:21:00.000+10:00

55.6% Mortality in Rats Whose MothersWere Fed GM Soy
A recent Russian study found that an astounding 55.6% of the offspring of female rats fed genetically engineered soy flour died within three weeks. The female rats had received 5-7 grams of the Roundup Ready variety of soybeans, beginning two weeks before conception and continuing through nursing. By comparison, only 9% of the offspring of rats fed non-GM soy died. Furthermore, offspring from the GM-fed group were significantly stunted—36% weighed less than 20 grams after 2 weeks, compared to only 6.7% from the non-GM soy control group.
The study was conducted by Dr. Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). It was originally presented on October 10, 2005 to the symposium on genetic modification in Russia, organized by the National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS).
Click here for Jeffrey Smith's newsletter article on the study.
Click here for the Institute of Responsible Technology's press release on the study.
Click here for the American Academy of Environmental Medicine's resolution.
Click here for media coverage of study.

Photos of two rats from the Russian study, showing stunted growth - the larger rat, 19 days old, is from the control group; the smaller rat, 20 days old, is from the "GM soy" group.

Genetically Modified Foods at a Glance
Here is a summary of what crops, foods and food ingredients have been genetically modified:
Currently Commercialized GM Crops in the U.S.(Number in parentheses represents the estimated percent that is genetically modified.)Soy (89%)Cotton (83%)Canola (65%)Corn (61%)Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%)Alfalfa, zucchini and yellow squash (small amount)Tobacco (Quest® brand)
Other Sources of GMOsDairy products from cows injected with rbGH.Food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents, including the sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet®) and rennet used to make hard cheesesMeat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that have eaten GM feedHoney and bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen
Some of the Ingredients That May Be Genetically ModifiedVegetable oil (soy, corn, cottonseed, or canola), margarines, soy flour, soy protein, soy lecithin, textured vegetable protein, cornmeal, corn syrup, dextrose, maltodextrin, fructose, citric acid, and lactic acid.
Some of the Foods That May Contain GM IngredientsInfant formulaSalad dressingBreadCerealHamburgers and hotdogsMargarineMayonnaiseCrackersCookiesChocolateCandyFried foodChipsVeggie burgersMeat substitutesIce creamFrozen yogurtTofuTamariSoy sauceSoy cheeseTomato sauceProtein powderBaking powderAlcoholVanillaPowdered sugarPeanut butterEnriched flourPasta
Non-Food Items That May Contain GM IngredientsCosmeticsSoapsDetergentsShampooBubble bath

A Deadly Epidemic and the Attempt to Hide its Link to Genetic Engineering
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the international bestseller Seeds of Deception
In October, 1989, 44-year old Kathy Lorio arrived in the medical office of Dr. Phil Hertzman in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Lorio, who had been healthy and active, was suddenly struck with severe pain and a host of debilitating symptoms. Blood tests revealed that her eosinophil count had skyrocketed. The normal concentration of this white blood cell is about 10 per CC. Allergies or asthma can make it rise to 500. Lorio’s was over 10,000.
In a coincidence that was destined to save lives, Hertzman referred her to Santa Fe rheumatologist James Mayer, who happened to have recently seen another patient, Bonnie Bishop, with similar symptoms. Bishop was in severe pain, her arms and legs were filled with fluid, she had trouble breathing, and her muscles were so weak she couldn’t even sit up. “She slumped like a rag doll.”[1] And her eosinophil count was extremely high.
Patient histories revealed that both Bishop and Lorio were taking the food supplement L-tryptophan. Although it was the only supplement common to both patients, the doctors were hesitant to blame L-tryptophan for the disease. It is an essential amino acid, naturally found in turkey and milk, and in supplement form had been consumed safely for years as a treatment for stress, insomnia and depression.
Hertzman checked the literature on eosinophils. One author’s name kept coming up—Dr. Gerald Gleich of the Mayo Clinic. Hertzman gave him a call. Gleich told him that two cases weren’t enough to draw a conclusion about L-tryptophan. Better wait. They didn’t wait long. That same day a third case, also linked to L-tryptophan, was reported in New Mexico. Gleich called the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta and told them about the cluster of patients in New Mexico and the possible link to L-tryptophan.
Within two weeks, three other patients checked into the Mayo Clinic with serious symptoms—one needed a respirator to breathe. All had taken L-tryptophan and they were from different parts of the country. Gleich called the CDC again. He told them it’s not limited to New Mexico—it’s out and it’s deadly. An L-tryptophan alert went nationwide.
Articles began circulating about the mysterious disease. The Albuquerque Journal ran a series about it that eventually won the Pulitzer Prize. The New York Times covered it. As more articles appeared, the phone calls started coming in—first dozens, then hundreds, then thousands: individuals with incurable symptoms, doctors with incurable patients, and stories of horrific symptoms. Some had coughs, rashes, physical weakness, pneumonia, breathing difficulties, hardening of the skin, mouth ulcers, nausea, shortness of breath, muscle spasms, visual problems, hair loss, difficulty with concentration or memory, and paralysis. Not everyone had all the symptoms, but everyone seemed to be in pain—greater pain than doctors had seen before. The disease was named eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, or EMS—eosinophilia because of the high cell count, myalgia because of the muscle pain. In all, about 5,000 - 10,000 people got sick; some are permanently disabled. About 100 people died.
Disease Traced to Genetic Modification
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported on July 11, 1990 that people only got EMS from pills made by Showa Denko, one of the six manufacturers whose L-tryptophan was imported into the U.S. from Japan. Showa Denko’s pills had several unique contaminants that were likely to be responsible for the epidemic. Moreover, the manufacturer was genetically engineering bacteria to produce the L-tryptophan more economically. Genes had been inserted into bacteria’s DNA in order to produce high concentrations of several enzymes used in its production.
Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, who helped track the source of the epidemic, said in a Newsday article on August 14, “This obviously leads to that whole debate about genetic engineering.” Two weeks later, FDA spokesperson Sam Page was quoted in Science magazine “blasting” Osterholm for raising the issue of genetic engineering, “especially given the impact on the industry.”[2]
Diverting Blame
There are numerous ways in which genetically engineered bacteria might lead to unpredicted contaminants. For example:
The process of inserting genes can create significant changes in the expression of natural genes throughout the DNA, causing changes in proteins (including enzymes) and their interactions.
Genetic engineering can cause mutations and deletions in the DNA, altering its natural functioning and changing what is produced.
The bacteria were engineered to produce ingredients in larger concentrations than were normally part of the process to create L-tryptophan. These higher concentrations might interact in unpredictable ways to create new compounds.
The L-tryptophan is toxic to the bacteria that create it. As a means of self-preservation, the bacteria might have modified the L-tryptophan, itself, or its environment.
The press reported that Showa Denko had introduced a GM strain of bacteria at Christmas time in 1988. Soon after, they also reduced the amount of carbon in the filter of the manufacturing process from 20 kilos to 10. This change in the filter was just what the young and vulnerable biotech industry needed to protect its reputation. The alternative story diverted the blame away from genetic engineering. This explanation circulated around the world. “The change in the filter was responsible for the epidemic.” Or more simply put, “It was bad manufacturing—not genetic engineering.”
In 1996, writer William Crist began what would become an eight-year investigation into the cause of the EMS epidemic. He contacted the FDA’s biotechnology coordinator, James Maryanski, who told him “We can not rule [genetic engineering] out. . . . However, we are aware of close to two dozen cases of L-tryptophan-linked EMS that occurred before Showa Denko began using their engineered strain. So, there would have to be a cause other than just the mere engineering of the strains. Now, I can’t say that definitively because we don’t have a lot of information on these earlier cases.” Maryanski asserted that “either L-tryptophan itself, or L-tryptophan in combination with something that was the result of the purification process, was probably the more likely cause.”[3]
Crist decided to track down the EMS cases that Maryanski described—those caused by L-tryptophan produced before the genetically altered bacterium was introduced in December 1988. He quickly discovered CDC studies that identified about 100 pre-epidemic cases, not two dozen. And since reported cases of EMS were far less than actual cases, the true number, using the CDC’s estimated ratio for unreported incidents, was in the hundreds—all apparently from individuals who had ingested Showa Denko’s pills manufactured before December 1988. This fact clearly dismantled the change-in-the-filter theory as the cause of the disease. But it didn’t explain how the contaminants got into Showa Denko’s L-tryptophan.
Crist spoke with several attorneys who represented EMS victims. They had gathered significant evidence for their lawsuits, which were eventually settled with Showa Denko for about $2 billion. In one company memo obtained by an attorney, Crist discovered a significant fact. The bacterium introduced in December 1988 was called Strain 5. The preceding three strains, introduced starting on October 22, 1984, were all genetically modified. This was a revelation. It countered the FDA’s argument that illnesses “that occurred before Showa Denko began using their engineered strain” meant that “there would have to be a cause other than [genetic engineering].” But they were all engineered!
As he looked at the memo, Crist wondered why the FDA didn’t know about the earlier GM strains. They had access to a lot more information he did. Then his eyes rose to the top of the document to see a fax imprint: “FDA September 17, 1990.” It had been faxed by the FDA! They knew back in 1990 that the earlier strains were modified, but in 1996, the FDA’s biotech coordinator James Maryanski was still claiming ignorance.
An even greater omission occurred when Douglas Archer, deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, testified before Congress in July 1991 about the epidemic. Not only did he not discuss the earlier bacterial strains, he never even mentioned genetic engineering. Instead, he blamed the disease on “the dangers inherent in the various health fraud schemes that are being perpetrated upon segments of the American public.” The FDA used this logic to take all L-tryptophan, GM or not, off the market.
According to a 2000 article in the Rutgers Law Journal, “Political pressures have played a role in the FDA’s decision to ban L-tryptophan as well as its desire to increase its regulatory power over dietary supplements.”[4] In its FDA Dietary Supplement Task Force report on June 15, 1993, it states, “The Task Force considered various issues in its deliberations, including ... what steps are necessary to ensure that the existence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as a disincentive to drug development.” According the Rutgersarticle, “This is a particularly disturbing issue,” as it shows that developing FDA guidelines “has far more to do with eliminating competition in the pharmaceutical industry than preserving the public health.” In the case of L-tryptophan, the FDA simultaneously protected prescription drugs for stress, insomnia and depression, as well as the entire biotech industry. In retrospect, when FDA’s Sam Page told Science that it was better not to discuss genetic engineering, “especially given the impact on the industry,” it turns out he was describing the motivation and strategy that would guide the agency for years.
Sobering Lessons Unheeded
Many studies have verified that the process of genetic engineering can produce unpredicted toxins or allergens. Nevertheless, the FDA does not require any additional safety testing for GM products, whether they are food crops or supplements. Thus, if that same deadly L-tryptophan were first introduced today, it would get on the market.
The EMS epidemic took years to identify and was almost missed. The only reason it was discovered was because the disease had three concurrent characteristics: it was rare, acute, and came on quickly. What would happen if all three characteristics had not been in place? What if it took 20 years for onset or only impacted the next generation? What if it produced only mild symptoms like frequent colds? What if it created serious diseases that were common, like cancer, heart-disease, obesity or diabetes? The epidemic might remain undiscovered for decades.
What then of the thousands of products currently being fed to US citizens that contain ingredients from genetic modification? Might they be creating problems that don’t have all three characteristics? Are they contributing to the doubling of food-related illnesses in the United States between 1994 and 2001, corresponding to the time when many of these products were introduced? We don’t know, because no one is looking. And even if we were, derivatives from the four major GM crops, soy, corn, cottonseed, and canola, are found in the majority of processed foods. Unlike L-tryptophan, if common food ingredients were creating health problems, identifying the source might be impossible.
In spite of these facts, and ignoring the thousands of victims of GM L-tryptophan, U.S. regulators continue to make the baseless statement that “millions of people have been eating genetically engineered products for years and no one has gotten hurt.”
Dissatisfied with the way that the FDA is protecting their health, more and more people have chosen to protect themselves by avoiding GM foods altogether. Here too, the FDA stands in the way. More than 90 percent of Americans want GM foods labeled. Most industrialized nations require labeling. But the FDA has an official mandate to promote biotechnology. They know that more than half of those surveyed say they would avoid GM foods if they were labeled. To protect industry profits, the FDA ignores the desires of nine out of ten Americans.
There is no indication that another EMS epidemic will emerge from another GM food or supplement. But with obesity, diabetes, migraines, allergies, and many other ailments skyrocketing in the U.S., there is no guarantee that another GM-related epidemic is not already upon us.
To learn more about the potential dangers of GM foods, to find out how to shop GM-free, and to read the excellent report by William Crist, visit www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm.

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at http://www.responsibletechnology.org/. Publishers and webmasters may offer this article or monthly series to your readers at no charge, by emailing http://mailto:column@responsibletechnology.org/. Individuals may read the column each month by subscribing to a free newsletter at http://www.responsibletechnology.org/.
References
[1] Barbara Deane, “Anatomy of an Epidemic,” Reader’s Digest, April 1991[2] P. Raphals, “Does medical mystery threaten biotech?” Science, vol. 249, no. 619, 1990[3] William E. Crist, The Toxic L-Tryptophan Epidemic, see www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm.[4] Joshua H. Beisler, L-tryptophan Section from "Dietary Supplements and Their Discontents: FDA Regulation and the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, Rutgers Law Journal, Winter 2000, see www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=263.
© Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith. Permission is granted to reproduce this in whole or in part.