NOFA/Massachusetts Social Action CenterGenetic Engineering NewsFeburary, 2008 Consumers Win on Milk Labeling In Indiana HB 1300, with bipartisan sponsorship, passed the House Agriculture Committee 10-0 on January 22. Immediately a national coalition of rBGH opponents linked up with Indiana activists alerted lists in Indiana, developed and delivered a sign-on letter with over 70 organizations and businesses, connected with rBGH-free dairies to express opposition, and simply bombarded Indiana legislators with e-mails and phone calls protesting the bill. In a little more than a week the sponsor, Rep. Friend, declined to bring it to a floor vote, knowing he didn't have the votes to pass it. In Pennsylvania, agriculture officials have backed down from a similar ban on milk labels. The ban was to take effect February 1, to the dismay of consumer activists and many smaller dairies who choose not to inject their cows with hormones. But the move has been superseded by new standards issued after a review by the office of Gov. Rendell. Rendell ordered the agency to review the policy after consumer outcry, his spokesman said. ? The only major concession given was that processors are now required to include the FDA disclaimer that there is "no significant difference" between rBGH and rBGH-free milk. California GE Bill Passes State Assembly 1. Protection from patent infringement lawsuits for farmers ?unknowingly contaminated by GE crops. Currently, farmers with crops that ?become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of ?such lawsuits without clear recourse or defense. 2. The establishment of a mandatory crop sampling protocol to be ?used by patent holders when investigating farmers they believe may have ?violated patents or seed contracts. This protocol would require the ?farmer's written permission for sampling, and provide for a state ?agriculture official to accompany the patent holder during the sampling ?and collect duplicate samples for independent verification if requested ?by either party. "I am very pleased that the stakeholders on this issue have found a way ?to address one of the issues related to genetic contamination of crops," ?stated Assembly Member and sponsor Jared Huffman. "While there is still work to do on ?other issues concerning genetically engineered food, AB 541 would be an ?important step in establishing basic protections for California's ?farmers." The bill will now move to the Senate for consideration. Kraft Shakes up Dairy Market, Offers rBGH-free Cheese "This is a big development and shows that food companies acknowledge consumers are taking a much more active interest in what is in their food," says Bill Bishop, chairman of Barrington-based consultancy Willard Bishop. "This used to be a niche interest, but as it becomes more mainstream the big food companies . . . have to respond or they will find themselves in an unfortunate position." Other companies already have responded to those concerns. Dean Foods Co., the largest U.S. dairy company, offers a line of rBGH-free products, while grocery chain Kroger Co. bans the artificial hormone from its name-brand milk. Starbucks Corp. last year became the highest-profile company to act, instituting a ban in its 6,793 company-operated cafes. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., spun off from McDonald's Corp. in 2006, also announced last year it was banning rBGH. McDonald's itself has not yet followed suit. The FDA approved the use of rBGH, recombinant bovine somatotropin, in dairy cows in 1993. The agency reaffirmed its ruling that there was no health or safety threat to humans in 2000. About 17% of U.S. dairy cows receive the artificial hormone, according to a 2007 government survey. Opponents of rBST say it increases infections in cows and stimulates the production of another hormone in the animals linked to cancer in humans. Biotech Groups Desert International Agriculture Project The companies argue the report should say their GM technology could secure future food supplies because it can boost yields and make plants more resistant to droughts and higher temperatures. Bob Watson, director of the project, which is based on the work of 4,000 scientists and experts from around the world, said he was "very disappointed" by the companies' move. "It's very unfortunate that they have walked out even before we agreed on the final version. If they can bring evidence forward that we have not been objective, or that the language is biased, then we could discuss that." The draft report says there is a "wide range of perspectives on the environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern biotechnology, many of which are as yet unknown". It says it is not clear whether GM crops increase yields and warns that use of the technology in the developing world could concentrate "ownership of agricultural resources" in the hands of the companies involved, as well as causing problems with patents. Greenpeace, a member of the assessment project, urged the companies to reconsider. Jan van Aken, GM campaigner with Greenpeace International, said: "This assessment goes far beyond genetic engineering, it is about setting solutions for global agriculture and the world's poor and hungry. It is such a shame to withdraw from such a good initiative, simply because your business plans do not fit with sound science and experts voiced a more balanced opinion than yours." Lawsuit Challenges Federal Approval of Genetically Engineered Beets This spring, commercial sugar beet farmers in the western U.S. will begin planting Roundup Ready sugar beets, which are genetically engineered (GE) to be resistant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. Sugar beet seeds are primarily grown in Oregon's Willamette Valley, also an important seed growing area for crops closely related to sugar beets, such as organic chard and table beets. The groups contend that wind-pollinated GE sugar beets will inevitably cross-pollinate with related crops being grown in close proximity, contaminating conventional sugar beets and organic chard and table beet crops. Such biological contamination would also be devastating to organic farmers, who face debilitating market losses if their crops are contaminated by a GE variety. "Serious Questions" Open the Way for a French Ban on GMO Corn "Yes, new scientific information exists," declared Jean-François Le Grand, UMP senator for La Manche, president of the High Authority, as he delivered his opinion to Mr. Borloo. "Yes, serious questions exist. In order to remove them, we must have time and money." The words were not chosen by chance. During his Tuesday, January 8, press conference, Nicolas Sarkozy had said he was prepared to activate the European escape clause on MON810 in the event of "serious questions." It seems most likely, therefore, that the clause will be activated and MON810 cultivation suspended. The moratorium will then be in effect, since this corn that is resistant to the corn borer - a major corn insect pest - is the only transgenic plant that may be cultivated in Europe. Activation of the escape clause, however, will not mean that France has determined definitively on the fate of GMO. The High Authority will issue its opinions case by case on each GMO. Its composition and its broadened questioning should give it a legitimacy that previous government agencies, like the Commission on Bio-engineering, were never able to achieve. Bove Calls Off Hunger Strike U.S. Holds Fire on Sanctions Against EU In GM Food Dispute Unwanted Immune Responses Triggered by GM Pharma Corn LT-B is a protein produced by bacteria that heightens the immune response. It is being tested in transgenic crops to increase effectiveness of oral vaccines. In this experiment, eating extremely small amounts of LT-B several times over less than a month caused exposed mice to develop immune reactions to the protein. But transgenic plants are usually grown outside in large fields to reduce costs. Given the remarkably low dose of LT-B required for immune responses, it is questionable if such production strategies are worth the risks of population-wide exposure and possible immune system effects. The results in the mice were produced by only a few intermittent doses. Even workers could be exposed daily to much larger doses in grain dusts. Population risks would depend upon the likelihood of seed contamination or cross-pollination by LT-B crops to food crops grown in nearby fields. Unless unintentional exposure is prevented, widespread production of LT-B could sensitize the public and workers to the protein. People inadvertently exposed to LT-B could develop allergies to other food proteins eaten at the same time. Canadian Farmer Forces Monsanto Back to Court Monsanto's Latest Court Triumph Cloaks Massive Market Power Preventing people from saving seeds and freely propagating crops has been tried before. In medieval times, merchants in the Levant strove mightily to corner the coffee market by refusing to export raw coffee beans that might be replanted. Their effort eventually failed, and coffee now flourishes in Latin America, South Asia, and southern Africa. But Monsanto has patent law on its side. Monsanto has established for itself the right to claim ownership of genetic material -- a revolutionary step in the history of property rights. Yet the logic behind Monsanto's claim, so airtight on its own terms, has serious implications for broader society. To understand how this product conquered the farm belt so rapidly, you have to understand how large-scale commodity farmers make decisions. Your neighbor tries a new product, and suddenly boasts weed-free fields without time-consuming cultivating. He reveals that he bought newfangled, high-dollar seeds that he can simply douse with herbicide -- and more than made his money back on weed-free yields. So you do the same. Trouble is, everyone else does, too -- and the higher yields nationwide lead to lower prices for soy, erasing any advantage of the new seeds. Thus farmers hardly enter into Monsanto's "technology agreements" under completely free-market conditions. Their choice is essentially to submit to Monsanto's terms, or live with either high weeding costs or lower yields. Remember, 90 percent of U.S. soy -- our second-biggest crop -- is genetically modified to be herbicide-resistant; and more than 90 percent of that contains traits owned by Monsanto. For corn, our biggest crop, 60 percent is GM -- and nearly all of it contains Monsanto genes. Somehow, a single corporation has managed to use patent law to gain de facto control of the nation's two biggest crops -- and managed to annul the age-old right of seed-saving over a broad swath of farm country. Monsanto may have airtight logic on its side for patent law, but it has clearly run afoul of a much less-enforced branch of legal code: antitrust law. The time has come to bust up this giant seed trust. Scientists Unveil 'Supercarrot' It is not the first time the carrot has been tampered with. The orange color we know is the result of Dutch cultivation in the 17th Century, when patriotic growers turned a vegetable which was then purple into the color of the national flag. Arpad Pusztai: Unrepentant Pusztai compared rats fed ordinary potatoes and potatoes that had been genetically modified with a lectin from snowdrops. The rats on the GM diet grew less well and had immune problems even though the lectin itself caused no adverse effects at high concentrations. His conclusion was that the GM process had somehow made the potatoes less nutritious. The GM potatoes were not a commercial variety and were never intended for human consumption, but the lectin modification - which made them poisonous to insects - was an experimental model for other GM varieties. He was attacked viciously by the GM industry and the affair finished off Pusztai's research career (although at the time he was already 69) and affected his health. His supporters were appalled by his treatment at the hands of the publicly funded Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, which he had served with distinction for most of his career. He was regarded as a world expert on plant lectins - defensive proteins that kill insects and other invaders - with over 300 scientific papers, including two in the prestigious journal Nature. He felt he had a duty to speak out, "just to inject some caution into this business", he says. "Make no mistake, this is an irreversible technology. It is no good 50 years later to say: 'We should have known.'" Review Shows No Evidence GM Foods Are Safe This page was last modified on February 09, 2008 at 9:22:11 AM. |
