NOFA/Massachusetts Social Action Center

Genetic Engineering News

May, 2008
compiled by Jack Kittredge
NOFA/Mass Social Action Coordinator

Brad Mitchell Now at Monsanto
Brad Mitchell, longtime a key top staffer at the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources, is no longer there. Queries to the department about his current employment returned the information that he is now director of public affairs at Monsanto. A Google search turns up recent articles quoting Brad as defending the company's lawsuits against farmers and price increases for their Roundup herbicide.
source: personal Email and Google search, May 6, 2008

400 Scientists Say GM Crops No Answer For Hunger, World Farm System Needs to be Overhauled
The biggest study of its kind ever conducted - the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) - has concluded that GM is not the answer to world hunger and called for radical changes in world farming to avert food shortages, escalating prices and environmental problems. The 2,500 page IAASTD report was authored by over 400 scientists and signed onto by 60 governments. The process was launched by governments and co-sponsored by UN agencies (including the FAO, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO and WHO) and the World Bank. The lack of specific support for GM crops was based on a rigorous and peer-reviewed analysis of the empirical evidence. The report concluded: 'Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable'. The report adds that growing biofuel crops for automobiles threatens to increase worldwide malnutrition. The report also emphasizes the importance for poor farmers of sustainable agriculture that is biodiversity-based, including agro-ecology and organic farming. The US, Canada and Australia refused to sign the report, despite being among the stakeholders who selected the report's authors. Although the UK has not yet signed, Bob Watson - Defra's chief scientist who has also independently chaired the?IAASTD assessment process - seems confident it will.

Some comments from observers:
"So, they finally figured out, after all these years of pushing globalization and genetically modified seeds, that instead of feeding the world we've created a food system that leaves more people hungry. If they'd?listened to farmers instead of corporations, they would've known this was going to happen." - Wisconsin dairy farmer Jim Goodman

"The current global food system, designed by US-based agribusiness conglomerates like Cargill, Monsanto and ADM and forced into place by the U.S. government and its allies at the World Bank, the International Monetary?Fund, and the World Trade Organization, has planted the seeds of disaster by pressuring farmers here and abroad to produce cash crops for export and alternative fuels rather than grow healthy food for local consumption and?regional stability."?- John Nichols, Philadelphia Enquirer

"It's time many science policy-makers started eating GM humble pie, and urgent questions must now be raised about the lessons they have drawn from the GMO debate. We've had 10 years and, I suspect, tens of millions of pounds, promoting transgenic crops as a solution for world hunger and sustainable agriculture - in the face of the balance of scientific evidence...I wonder how many hunger-related deaths in developing countries could have been avoided if science policy-makers had applied this philosophy [of taking public concern seriously] to GM crops 10 years ago?"?- Dr. Tom Wakeford, The Guardian
source: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8998
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8999
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=9001
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=9003
Key points in the report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/15/food.unitednations http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20080427_The_global_food_system_feeds_gluttonous_corporations_first.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/30/gmcrops.food

GMO Defensive Shopping List
Though most industrialized countries require labeling of GMOs, the U.S. does not. Nine out of ten Americans want genetically modified (GM) foods to be labeled. Most people say they would avoid brands if labeled as GM. Processed foods often have hidden GM sources (unless they are organic or declared non-GMO). The following are ingredients that may be made from GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola. aspartame gluten modified starch
baking powder glycerides monosodium glutamate
bee pollen glycerin oleic acid
caramel color glycerol Phenylalanine
cellulose glycerol monooleate phytic acid
citric acid glycine sorbitol
cobalamin (Vitamin B12) hemicellulose soy flour
corn gluten high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) soy isolates
corn masa hydrogenated starch soy lecithin
corn oil hydrolyzed vegetable protein soy protein
corn syrup inositol starch
cornmeal invert sugar (colorose or inversol) stearic acid
cornstarch tamari inverse syrup
cyclodextrin isoflavones tempeh
cystein lactic acid threonine
dextrin lecithin tocopherols (Vitamin E)
dextrose leucine tofu
diacetyl lysine trehalose
diglyceride malitol triglyceride
fructose maltodextrin vegetable fat
fructose (crystalline) maltose vegetable oil
glucose mannitol Vitamin B12
glutamate methylcellulose Vitamin E
glutamic acid milo starch xanthan gum
Our understanding is that ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), although usually derived from corn, is probably not GM because it is not made in North America. Honey and bee pollen may contain GMOs if the beehives are near GM crops.
source: This list is continually being updated and refined. For the most recent version, see www.responsibletechnology.org.

GM Fantasists In Full Swing
No GM crops have been successfully engineered for increased yield, and the evidence points to reduced yields with GM crops - but the claim that GM is?the answer to the current food crisis is being made constantly at the moment by GM supporters. Here is Simon Jenkins in The (London) Guardian last week, 'increased food productivity is so patently a good thing that to ban GM from European imports, and thus from Africa, is beyond perverse.' Jenkins also described GM as 'the swiftest path to higher productivity.' And here's Bill Emmott telling Telegraph readers that with GM, 'The era of cheap food does?not have to be over. We have it within our power to bring it back'. He also claimed that GM cut down fertilizer use!
source:?http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=9006

Exposed: The Great GM Crops Myth
A major new study shows that GM soya produces 10% less food than its conventional equivalent, undermining recent claims by the pro-GM lobby that a switch to the technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis?brought on by agrofuels. The study - carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas - has found that Monsanto's GM soya produces?about 10% less than its conventional equivalent. The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska. Both studies suggest it is probably the process of GM itself that suppresses productivity. source: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html

Behind The Label - Roundup
An excellent article in The Ecologist points out that when you buy a product such as Roundup you are buying into a host of other issues you may never had dreamed of - worldwide pesticide contamination, loss of biodiversity, increases in ill health and the support of GM crops. EXCERPT: In 2002, French scientists found that Roundup activates one of the key stages of cellular division that can potentially lead to cancer. There is also research that shows that even brief exposure to glyphosate causes?liver damage in rats. The research indicated that glyphosate acted in synergy with the surfactant used in Roundup to increase damage to the liver. The label of Fast Action Roundup weedkiller claims it biodegrades leaving no soil residues. What actually happens is that glyphosate attaches itself, rather like a magnet, to minerals in the soil and remains more or less in situ until the soil is moved - by heavy rain, for instance. That is when the glyphosate can move into water supplies and have a more widespread environmental impact. In April 2005, work by scientists at the University of?Pittsburgh, US, suggested that Roundup is lethal to lifeforms other than?plants - in this case amphibians. In an extensive study on the effects of?pesticides on these 'non-target' organisms in a natural setting, the researchers found that Roundup caused a 70 per cent decline in amphibian biodiversity and an 86 per cent decline in the total mass of tadpoles.?Leopard frog tadpoles and gray tree frog tadpoles were nearly eliminated by exposure to the herbicide.
source: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=9007

GM Seeds Can 'Last For 10 Years'
Seeds of some GM crops can persist in soil for at least 10 years, scientists have discovered. Researchers in Sweden examined a field that had been planted with experimental oilseed rape (canola) a decade ago, and found transgenic specimens were still growing there. This was despite intensive efforts in the intervening years to remove seeds. Prof Mark Westoby, a plant ecologist from Macquarie University in Australia, said, 'This study confirms that GM crops are difficult to confine. We should assume that GM organisms cannot be confined, and ask instead what will become of them when they escape.'
source: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8950

New Pamphlet On GM Health Risks
The Institute for Responsible Technology has produced a simple and accessible pamphlet on the health risks of GMOs. To view a pdf, go to: source:
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showDocumentFile?objectID=140

Codex Committee Issues Controversial Biotech Labeling Paper
Over the opposition of the United States, a committee of the Codex Alimentarius has taken the next step toward the formal approval of a concept paper outlining guidelines for labeling of biotechnology products. The Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) on April 29 approved for public comment a concept paper containing language that could be used by trading partners to justify mandatory labeling of biotechnology products for the purpose of catering to consumer preferences for non-GMO foods. This could ultimately make it harder to challenge such a labeling scheme in the World Trade Organization, sources said.

A U.S. consumer advocate characterized the decision as a setback for the U.S., which has advocated GMO labeling only when there are significant genetic differences between the GMO and the traditional product, such as potential allergens. The advocate said that the paper's fate now depends on whatever position on GMO labeling a new U.S. administration will take.

At the CCFL meeting, the U.S., Canada, Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Costa Rica opposed moving the paper forward to the comment period, sources said. The decision received strong support from the European Union and African countries. Australia, which had previously sided with the U.S., changed its approach and seemed to back the decision to start a public comment period, sources said. They speculated this could be a reflection of the change in Australia's government.
source: World Trade Online, May 2, 2008, www.insidetrade.com

AMA President Suggests Hospitals Avoid rBGH Milk, Host Farmers Markets
Ronald M. Davis, MD, president of the American Medical Association, reports that many conditions linked to toxic pollutants are on the rise. He urges hospitals to stop using devices made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic (also known as the "poison plastic") because of the toxins released when they are incinerated and the phthalate DEHP used in manufacturing them.

He then goes on to say: "Using alternatives to PVC and DEHP is one way for hospitals and health care facilities to become 'greener.' Another is by serving fresh, local, or organic foods to patients, staff members, and visitors. Hospitals should buy meat and poultry raised without non-therapeutic antibiotics, use milk produced without recombinant bovine growth hormone, and replace unhealthy snacks found in many vending machines with healthy choices. Hosting farmers markets, either on hospital grounds or nearby, is another appealing option."
source: AMA eNews, April 24 edition

Biotech Bets on Agrofuels
There is a new participant in the international deliberations on global warming and agrofuels: the biotechnology industry. The corporate giants of the genetics industry propose new technologies, including genetically modified trees, second generation cellulosic ethanol, and synthetic biology, to wean society off fossil fuels and fight climate change.

Biotechnology companies have become some of the main movers in promoting the use of farm crops like corn, soy, and sugar cane to make fuel for motor vehicles. Faced with increasing public resistance to human consumption of their GM crops, the biotech industry sees its salvation in the production of GM agrofuels. By portraying GM crops as the answer to climate change and resource depletion caused by fossil fuels, they hope to cast a more favorable light on biotech plants.

They have a lot at stake: Monsanto, for example, obtains 60% of its revenue from the sale of GM seeds. Riding the tide of the biofuels boom, Monsanto and other companies hope to avoid the human health concerns associated with GM food crops and open up a whole new area of profit from the global warming crisis.
source: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5179

New GMO Website Opens
The Nature Institute has unveiled a new website designed to set the public debate about genetic engineering upon a more accessible scientific foundation. Distilling a voluminous technical literature, the website gathers together -- often in the researchers' own words -- information about both the intended and unintended consequences of transgenic experiments. The emerging picture tells a dramatic story -- one that has scarcely begun to inform the public conversation to date. The website, available at http://nontarget.org, is part of The Nature Institute's ongoing project on "The Nontarget Effects of Genetic Manipulation."

Nontarget effects have proven both extensive and unpredictable. The evidence for their occurrence, while mostly buried in the technical literature, is not disputable or even particularly controversial. It's simply not widely known. Once it /is/ known, the frequently heard claim that genetic manipulation of organisms is a "precise science" without dramatic risks will either be voiced no more or will be recognized as dishonest.
source: The Nature Institute press release, April 14, 2008

U.S.: Monsanto's Plan To Deny Consumer Choice
Monsanto and its supporters are seeking to create a patchwork of state laws to prevent dairy manufacturers from labeling dairy products as free of rBGH. In fact, they want exactly the kind of patchwork of laws they previously said was totally unacceptable when they forced through legislation to pre-empt initiatives by local cities and counties to declare themselves GMO-free. source: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8956

GM Hormone-Free Dairy Map
You can download a list of rBGH-free dairy products sold in your area at www.sustainabletable.org/shop/dairymap/. source:?http://www.sustainabletable.org/shop/dairymap/

GM Humans Proposed in Great Britan
British MPs will soon decide whether to allow scientists to start research on the ultimate step in genetic engineering: the creation of GM 'designer' human beings. In the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, now going through Parliament, the government wants to allow the creation of GM human?embryos, as the first step towards developing safe technology for creating GM babies. The creation of GM babies is not just a hypothetical scenario: leading British scientists, such as Robert Winston and Ian Wilmut, have already patented techniques for doing this, including patenting human semen and embryos. The bill is likely to be debated in the House of Commons in mid-May.
source:?http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=9008

France: 25,000 Protesters Demonstrate Against GMOs
Numerous demonstrations were held in cities across France prior to the opening of the debate in the French parliament on draft GM legislation. Around 25,000 people protested against GMOs in Rennes, Clermont-Ferrand, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Avignon, Nancy and Lille.
source: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8947

The Battle Over GM Corn in Mexico
For over a year, farmers, scientists, and activists across Mexico have been mobilizing under the banner 'Without corn, there is no country'. The campaign has been organizing protests against the import of GM corn and in support of native varieties. Campesino and indigenous activists all over Mexico have vowed to keep fighting to do what no one else will: protect Mexico's corn, farmers, and indigenous peoples. 'Better to die fighting,' says indigenous-rights activist Don Serdan with tears in his eyes, 'than on our knees, begging for the food that we ourselves can produce.' source: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8953

Mass Protests In India Against GM Crops
In India, farmers' unions, consumer organizations, environmental groups,?development organizations and concerned scientists have stepped up their protests against Bt brinjal (eggplant/aubergine), which is in its last year?of trials before the expected commercial approval. An anti-GM protest is planned for Delhi on 6 May.
source: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=9000 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gmProtestsIndia.php

Ill Effects Of Bt Cotton
Reports have emerged in India that over the last 4-5 years, milk from farm animals fed on Bt cotton seeds has proved toxic for humans as well as the farm animals. Dr Sudhir Kumar Kaura, a biotechnologist and coordinator of farmers' group Kisan Bachao Andolan, led a team that conducted extensive scientific field studies. The team told the press that ill effects of Bt cotton on human and farm animal health can now be seen in rural as well as urban areas. Bt cotton is said to have caused untimely deaths, decline in milk quantity and quality, serious reproductive failures and pseudo-pregnancy in thousands of farm animals.
source: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=

This page was last modified on May 19, 2008 at 6:00:00 AM.