NOFA/Massachusetts Social Action CenterGenetic Engineering NewsApril 12, 2007 Are GM Crops Killing Bees A mysterious decimation of bee populations has world beekeepers worried. Bee populations throughout Germany have simultaneously dropped 25% and up to 80% in some areas. Poland, Switzerland and Spain are reporting similar declines. In the United States bees are dying in such dramatic numbers that the economic consequences could soon be dire. No one knows what is causing the bees to perish, but some experts believe that the large-scale use of genetically modified plants in the US could be a factor. Beekeepers on the east coast complain that they have lost more than 70 percent of their stock since late last year, while the west coast has seen a decline of up to 60 percent. In an article in its business section in late February, the New York Times calculated the damage US agriculture would suffer if bees died out. Experts at Cornell University in upstate New York have estimated the value bees generate -- by pollinating fruit and vegetable plants, almond trees and animal feed like clover -- at more than $14 billion. Scientists call the mysterious phenomenon "Colony Collapse Disorder" (CCD), and it is fast turning into a national catastrophe of sorts. A number of universities and government agencies have formed a "CCD Working Group" to search for the causes of the calamity, but have so far come up empty-handed. But, like Dennis vanEngelsdorp, an apiarist with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, they are already referring to the problem as a potential "AIDS for the bee industry." One thing is certain: Millions of bees have simply vanished. In most cases, all that's left in the hives are the doomed offspring. But dead bees are nowhere to be found -- neither in nor anywhere close to the hives. In many cases, scientists have found evidence of almost all known bee viruses in the few surviving bees found in the hives after most have disappeared. Some had five or six infections at the same time and were infested with fungi -- a sign, experts say, that the insects' immune system may have collapsed. The scientists are also surprised that bees and other insects usually leave the abandoned hives untouched. Nearby bee populations or parasites would normally raid the honey and pollen stores of colonies that have died for other reasons, such as excessive winter cold. This suggests that there is something toxic in the colony itself which is repelling them. Walter Haefeker, vice president of the European Professional Beekeepers Association, speculates that "besides a number of other factors," the fact that genetically modified, insect-resistant plants are now used in 40 percent of cornfields in the United States could be playing a role. Haefeker recently sent a researcher at the CCD Working Group some data from a bee study that he has long felt shows a possible connection between genetic engineering and diseases in bees. The study in question is a small research project conducted at the University of Jena from 2001 to 2004. The researchers examined the effects of pollen from a genetically modified maize variant called "Bt corn" on bees. A gene from a soil bacterium had been inserted into the corn that enabled the plant to produce an agent that is toxic to insect pests. The study concluded that there was no evidence of a "toxic effect of Bt corn on healthy honeybee populations." But when, by sheer chance, the bees used in the experiments were infested with a parasite, something eerie happened. According to the Jena study, a "significantly stronger decline in the number of bees" occurred among the insects that had been fed a highly concentrated Bt poison feed. According to Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a professor at the University of Halle in eastern Germany and the director of the study, the bacterial toxin in the genetically modified corn may have "altered the surface of the bee's intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry -- or perhaps it was the other way around. We don't know." Kaatz would have preferred to continue studying the phenomenon but lacked the necessary funding. "Those who have the money are not interested in this sort of research," says the professor, "and those who are interested don't have the money." Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan 2005 Bee Study Compares Impact of Organic, Conventional, and GM Canola A study conducted by Lora A. Morandin and Mark L. Winston at the Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, found that the ecological impacts of agriculture on bee populations are of concern, especially with genetically modified and other intensive, modern cropping systems, yet little is known about effects on wild bee populations and subsequent implications for pollination. Pollination deficit (the difference between potential and actual pollination) and bee abundance were measured in organic, conventional, and herbicide-resistant, genetically modified (GM) canola fields (Brassica napus and B. rapa) in northern Alberta, Canada, in the summer of 2002. Bee abundance data were collected using pan traps and standardized sweep netting, and pollination deficit was assessed by comparing the number of seeds per fruit from open-pollinated and supplementally pollinated flowers. There was no pollination deficit in organic fields, a moderate pollination deficit in conventional fields, and the greatest pollination deficit in GM fields. Bee abundance was greatest in organic fields, followed by conventional fields, and lowest in GM fields. Overall, there was a strong, positive relationship between bee abundance at sampling locations and reduced pollination deficits.
Monsanto, BASF Form $1.5 Billion Genetic Seeds Venture (Ethanol As Driver) U.S. seed company Monsanto Co. and German chemical giant BASF Ag on March 21 announced a $1.5 billion partnership to develop more genetically modified crops to meet growing demand for vegetable-based fuels. St. Louis-based Monsanto which currently has the lead on selling corn seeds with biotech traits to North American farmers, will pair a roster of eight seed traits with BASF's early-stage research and database of 35,000 plant genes. The two companies will equally share funding up to $1.5 billion in costs to develop genetic traits that increase yields and hardiness from corn, soybean, cotton and canola crops. They aim to start selling results of the collaboration in the first half of the next decade, with Monsanto slated to receive 60% of net profits from partnership and BASF taking 40%. Both companies are betting that competing demand for crops from food manufacturers and energy companies will push farmers toward their genetically altered seeds.
Genetic Engineering Bill Passes Out of California Assembly Judiciary Committee The Food and Farm Protection Act (AB 541) passed out of its first committee today with a vote of 7 to 3 in support. The bill will establish California's first state policy regarding genetic engineering in agriculture and protect farmers, the food supply and the environment from harms caused by genetic contamination of crops. The focus of the Judiciary Committee was on the provision of the bill that establishes that the GE crop manufacturer - and not the farmer who properly planted the GE crop - is the responsible party if contamination occurs and causes economic damages to others. "In contamination incidents to date, the burden has been on victimized farmers to take their case to court without the benefit of established case law or legislation establishing liability," stated Assemblymember Huffman in his testimony. "This bill levels the playing field for victims of contamination, and places the responsibility where it belongs, on the manufacturer, the entity that owns the GE plant." The bill has the support of a wide range of organizations including California Farmers Union, Rice Producers of California, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, California Certified Organic Farmers, Earthbound Farm, California Church IMPACT, Consumers Union, Sierra Club California, Environment California, Planning and Conservation League, and thousands of farmers and individuals. AB 541 will next be heard in the Assembly Agriculture Committee on April 25th.Source: April 10, 2007 press release from Assemblymember Jared Huffman PetFood Disaster -- Genetically Engineered Toxins The Associated Press cited the Environmental Protection Agency as having identified melamine as a contaminant and byproduct of several pesticides, including cryomazine. People began to question if there is also pesticide contamination of the wheat gluten. Is there a possibility of deliberate contamination, or is it the result of gross mismanagement and lack of effective food-safety and quality controls that accounts for levels of melamine reported to be as high as 6.6% by the FDA in samples of the wheat gluten A brief internet search quickly reveals that the widely used insect growth regulator cryomazine is not only made from melamine, but it also breaks down into melamine after ingestion by an animal. Wheat gluten is wheat gluten, fit for human consumption, so the question remains, what was wrong with this gluten that it was only bought for use in pet food On April 3 Associated Press named the US importer as ChemNutra of Las Vegas, reporting that the company had recalled 873 tons of wheat gluten that had been shipped to three pet food makers and a single distributor who in turn supplies the pet food industry. While Congressional hearings are now being called for by grieving pet owners, and class action suits put together, this debacle could have catastrophic consequences not only for conventional agribusiness, of which the pet food industry is a lucrative subsidiary, but also for the agricultural biotechnology industry, with its millions of acres of genetically engineered crops around the world. I reach this conclusion, until there is evidence to the contrary, for the following reasons: Key Stem Cell Patents Revoked The decision came as the result of a challenge filed in July 2006 by the US Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) and the Public Patent Foundation (see Free stem cells for all). "Given the facts, this is the only conclusion the PTO could have reached. The patents should never have been issued in the first place," said John Simpson, FTCR stem cell project director. "This is a great day for scientific research." The first lines of human ESCs were grown by Thomson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1998. Since then, WARF, which manages the university's intellectual property, has charged biotechnology firms licence fees running to hundreds of thousands of dollars for permission to use Wisconsin's ESCs or the methods Thomson used to grow them. Even academics once had to pay up to $5000 to use the cells, though the charge has since dropped to $500. WARF still has a chance to prove Thomson's work was novel and deserving of patents. If it loses again, it can still appeal, meaning the matter might not be resolved for years. However, most believe that the patents will now be narrowed or remain revoked. The challengers in the case said the decision will help stem cell research by encouraging and enabling a free flow of information among scientists, who will no longer be impeded by the possibility of infringing a patent.
Monsanto Sales Soar On Back Of Corn Success Monsanto Seeks To Stop Hormone Claims Monsanto's move marked the latest flare-up in a long-running dispute between the agricultural giant, which created the hormone rBST, also known as rBGH, and critics who say milk from cows treated with the hormone may cause breast, colon and prostate cancer in people, and mastitis in cows. The company said Tuesday that it has performed new tests that confirm earlier ones showing the safety of rBST that were the basis for its FDA approval in 1993. The company also said it was responding to a growing chorus of complaints from farmers who use the hormone, marketed under the name Posilac, who have seen sales of non-rBST milk products grow at their expense. "There's no different hormones in that milk if you're treating it with Posilac or not," said John Vrieze, a dairy farmer in Emerald, Wis. who wrote letters that Monsanto forwarded to the federal agencies. Yet critics such as Samuel Epstein, professor emeritus of environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Illinois School of PublicHealth, said the scientific record shows a difference in milk from cows treated with rBST."There is just overwhelming evidence," said Epstein, who has written a book on the effects of Posilac. The hormone was one of the first genetically modified organisms to enter the U.S. food chain. It was created to mimic the naturally occurring hormone called bovine somatotropin, or BST, which is found in all milk. The artificial version created by Monsanto, known as recombinant BST, increases a cow's milk production by 1.25 gallons a day. It is not approved for use in Canada or Europe.
Grain Industry Urges Syngenta to Reconsider Biotech Corn "We already are aware that Japanese buyers are developing contingency plans to purchase corn and corn products from non-U.S. origins if Syngenta releases this seed for planting and Japanese government approval is not forthcoming prior to harvest," said NGFA President Kendell W. Keith and NAEGA President and Chief Executive Officer Gary C. Martin. "Given the painful lessons learned in the past, we urge Syngenta to join with us in protecting the marketability of U.S. corn and corn products by delaying the introduction of Agrisure RW corn seed until it receives full regulatory approval in Japan and other important U.S. corn export markets." Syngenta announced its intent to begin selling its new Agrisure RW(tm) corn seed immediately after the March 16 decision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to deregulate the product after finding no adverse plant health or environmental concerns. The biotechnology-enhanced trait, which contains modified protein MIR604 to control corn rootworm insects, previously received authorizations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
FDA 'Cherry-Picked Evidence' To Push Through Cloned Foods Key Monsanto Patent Rejected BASF and Monsanto Announce Collaboration Canada: Cost To Label GM Food Overblown BioJustice 2007 to be May 4-9, 2007 in Boston FDA Urges Laxer Labeling On Irradiated Foods Including Use Of Term 'Pasteurized' The technique kills bacteria but does not cause food to become radioactive. Recent outbreaks of foodborne illness have revived interest in irradiation, even though it is not suitable for all food products. For example, irradiating diced Roma tomatoes makes them mushy, the FDA says. The FDA also proposed letting companies use the term "pasteurized" to describe irradiated foods. To do so, they would have to show the FDA that the radiation kills germs as well as the pasteurization process does. Pasteurization typically involves heating a product to a high temperature and then cooling it rapidly. In addition, the proposal would let companies petition the agency to use additional alternate terms other than "irradiated," something already allowed by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 but that no firms have pursued, according to the FDA. The FDA posted the proposed revisions to its rules on irradiated foods on its Web site Tuesday, a day before they were to be published in the Federal Register. The FDA is publishing the proposal as required by the 2002 law. FDA will accept public comments on the proposal for 90 days. A consumer group immediately urged the FDA to drop the idea. "This move by FDA would deny consumers clear information about whether they are buying food that has been exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation," Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said in a statement. The FDA acknowledges in the proposed rule that allowing alternative ways of describing irradiation could confuse consumers: "Research indicates that many consumers regard substitute terms for irradiation to be misleading," the proposal reads in part.
Liberty, Maine Votes To Become A GE-Free Zone According to Montville resident Svea Tillburg, a proponent of the resolution, "We're all aware that our environment is polluted by toxic chemicals. Genetic engineering is a new kind of pollution that spread and reproduces when released into the environment. Once a GE crop exists in the environment, its pollen can be passed on, contaminating other plants from the same species. And these newly contaminated plants can then reproduce the pollution, thereby causing us to lose diversity in crops and heirloom seeds." The original article in the warrant read: "Shall the Town of Liberty adopt a non-binding resolution to voluntarily protect its agriculture and forest economies, environment and private property by declaring Liberty an area free of genetically engineered agriculture." Food for Maine's Future was pleased with the results. "Communities around the state are going to continue to take action at the local level until the Governor and the Department of Agriculture take real action to protect all Maine farmers from genetic contamination. We hope this sends a clear message to Senator Weston, Representative Bob Walker, and Governor Baldacci to support LD1650 - a bill that will provide farmers with legal and practical protections from genetic trespass. " said Rob Fish, an organizer with Food for Maine's Future. "We encourage other towns to take the time to educate themselves and then take action on this important issue whether it be passing a town meeting resolution or hosting other types of community dialogues on the issue." LD 1650 is a bill to be heard by the Agriculture Committee later this month. The bill offers crucial support to all Maine farmers, enhances their property rights, protects them from lawsuits, and ensures them a fair venue to have their grievances heard. Specifically, the bill declares that liability for genetic trespassing should be assigned to the owner and patent-holder of the technology. Provisions of the bill would prevent biotech seed companies, such as Monsanto, from entering a farmer's property without a court order, allow for independent testing to verify GE content, and assure that any lawsuits targeting farmers will be heard in Maine courts. The bill also provides farmers with additional instructions on how to reduce the risk of cross pollination of GE and organic or traditional crops. Last year Montville voted to become a GE Free zone. The year before residents of Brooklin passed as similar resolution.
South Korean Government Orders Labeling Of All GM Products Products containing GMOs, which have been artificially transformed in labs to improve output, taste and resistance to disease, have drawn criticism over their possible adverse effects on the ecosystem and human health. "The changes call for all GMO products that are imported and manufactured for human consumption to be labeled," said Kim Young-man, head of the Agriculture Ministry's agriculture distribution bureau. To encourage enforcement of the new rules, the official said people who report mislabeling will be given cash rewards of up to 2 million won (US$2,130). Kim stressed that the move is not aimed to hurt imports of GMO products from such countries as the United States, and speculated that it will not cause complaints.
Euro Parliament Votes To Protect Organics GM Crops Cause 'Breakdown' In Indian Farming Systems Genetically modified crops have helped cause a "complete breakdown" in farming systems in India, an authoritative new study suggests. The study threatens to deal a fatal blow to probably the most powerful argument left in the biotech industry's armory, that it can help to bring prosperity to the Third World. Professor Glenn Davis Stone, professor of anthropology and environmental studies at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, has spent more than 40 weeks on the ground in the biotech industry's prime Developing World showcase, the Warangal district of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. The industry claims that local farmers have adopted GM cotton faster than any other agriculture technology in history. It argued at the prestigious Biovision conference in Lyon this month that the rapid spread proves that the technology is working for farmers. Professor Stone's study, published in the February issue of the journal Current Anthropology, demolishes this argument. Extensive interviews with the farmers proved that they are plumping for the GM seeds because they are new, hyped and locally fashionable, without having time to see if they produce better crops. "There is a rapidity of change that farmers just can't keep up with," he says. "They aren't able to digest new technologies as they come along." He adds that the rapid uptake "reflects the complete breakdown in the cotton cultivation system".Source: The Independent on Sunday (UK), 25 March 2007, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2390920.ece Rice Futures Nose-Dive As Mexico Halts U.S. Rice The GM Wake-Up Call Safety Fears Are Grounds For Continued Moratorium In Western Australia Multiple Studies Show Roundup Toxicity South Korean Government Documents Reveal Tradeoffs On GM Crops On April 5, the Hankyoreh reported, citing internal documents of the Korean delegation, that South Korea accepted the U.S. proposal that Washington would make a compromise in textile if Seoul eased quarantine regulations for GMOs. The following day, the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy issued an official rebuttal statement to the Hankyoreh article, saying, "We did not receive a proposal from the U.S. that the U.S. would expand its textile market access on the condition we soften import rules on GMOs." The statement continues, "It's hard to imagine for the U.S., which is sensitive to textile-market opening, to pursue the interests of another industry at the cost of the textile industry." However, according to South Korean government internal documents from March 31, named 'South Korea-U.S. FTA extended talks first-day negotiation plan,' and obtained by the Hankyoreh, the government wrote that "Yesterday [March 30], the U.S. chief textile negotiator Scott Quesenberry expressed his stance that the U.S. could improve its textile tariff concession offer, depending on [South Korea's] position over the GMO."
This page was last modified on January 21, 2008 at 5:17:36 PM. |
