Wikileaks: US Pushing GMOs Around the World

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Sep 03, 2011 at 11:43:18 AM PDT

One of the first cables I clicked on (from Morocco) mentioned something called Biotech Outreach Funds. Huh? M
ore information please! It didn't take long to Google a State Department presentation on the topic. It was presented by Jack A. Bobo, who was then the Deputy Chief Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. He is now the Chief of the Biotechnology and Textile Trade Policy Division, a job he was given in March of this year. He's been working on biotech for the State Department since 2002, under both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Bolivia Diaries: Day 2, Part 3 - GMOs and Local Food in Bolivia

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 19:23:38 PM PDT

Previous diaries can be seen here:

• Day 1, Part 1: The El Alto Market
  
• Day 1, Part 2: Intro to Bolivian Climate and Climate Change
  
• Day 1, Part 3: Intro to Andean Biodiversity
  
• Day 1, Part 4: Potatoes, Quinoa, and the Climate Crisis
  
• Day 2, Part 1: The La Paz Foodshed: The La Paz Market
  
• Day 2, Part 2: The La Paz Foodshed: The Last Agricultural Land in La Paz
  
• Intro to Bolivian Politics
  
• Day 2, Part 3: GMOs in Bolivia (FOBOMADE)
  
• Day 2, Part 4: TIPNIS (FOBOMADE)
  
• Day 3: Agriculture in Chicani, A La Paz Suburb
  
• Day 4, Part 1: The Death Road
  
• Day 4, Part 2: Coffee!
  
• Day 5, Part 1: Coca
  
• Day 5, Part 2: A Biointensive Garden
  
• Day 6: An Indigenous Village on Lake Titicaca (Santiago de Okola)
  
• Day 7: Santiago de Okola
  
• Day 8, Part 1: Festival in Cochabamba - Morenada
  
• Day 8, Part 2: Festival in Cochabamba - Morenada
  
• Day 8, Part 3: Festival in Cochabamba - Tinku
  
• Day 8, Part 4: Festival in Cochabamba - Caporales
  
• Day 8, Part 5: Festival in Cochabamba - Street Food

You can also find diaries from my 2010 trip to Bolivia here.

Engineering Food for Whom?

by: Marcia Ishii-Eiteman

Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 12:20:58 PM PDT

Warning! Nina Federoff - former "Science and Technology Advisor" to the U.S. State Department and well-known genetic engineering apologist - is back on her soapbox. In an Op Ed published in the New York Times last week, Federoff strings together one blazing falsehood after another, extolling the virtues of a technology that much of the rest of the world has rightly rejected. What is behind her evangelical commitment to this particular technology? Let's take a look.

The Dirt on Glyphosate

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 23:53:27 PM PDT

Another Huber Letter Leaked, Warns of Harm from Roundup and GMOs

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:12:11 AM PDT

GMO Update

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 23:08:48 PM PDT

GE Alfalfa:

• Center for Food Safety is suing the USDA over GE alfalfa. Again.

GE Sugarbeets:

• American Crystal Sugar is selling all GE sugar. Again. This is the fourth year they are planting all GE beet seeds.

Mexico:

• Mexico Approves Monsanto for GM Corn Pilot Project
  
• Monsanto Uses Latest Food Crisis to Push Transgenic Corn in Mexico (this one's good)

Crazy GE animals:

• Cows that make human breast milk - in China
  
• Pigs with organs you can transplant to humans - also in China

GE Salmon:

• Great NYT op ed on Frankenfish Phobia
  
• Could it become legal in Canada?

Monsanto:

• Getting sued by organic farmers! (Monsanto called it a public policy stunt)

Bullshit you should pay attention to:

• "Biodiversity doesn't feed people, but GM crops do" (ACSH is a corporate front, btw)

EU:

• Hungary opposed to GMOs
  
• There's an effort to decentralize the EU's GMO legalization process but Britain, France, Germany, and Spain are against it. But Britain says its opposition is because the decentralized policy might make it harder to introduce more GMOs.
  
• Another piece on the same draft policy says it could lead to violence and crop vandalism.
  
• France urged to permit GE corn.
  
• And France's ban on GE maize was done illegally.

GE Rice:

• A jury fined Bayer $136.8 million over the Riceland disaster that occurred a few years back when GE Liberty Link rice got into the commercial rice crop.

Labeling:

• Consumer freedom is under attack without truth-in-labeling for GMOs

Africa:

• More African countries are likely to grow GE crops.

  South Africa was the continent's sole cultivator of GM maize, cotton and soybeans until 2008, when Egypt began growing GM maize, and Burkina Faso started growing GM cotton.

  Now Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Mali, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Ghana are conducting research and field trials of GM crops including maize, rice, wheat, sorghum and cotton, which could prove to be the first step toward adoption.

• Ghana: Govt Under Pressure to Adopt Genetically Modified Crops
  
• Walter Alhassan, Monsanto-Cargill and GM in Ghana
  
• African Countries Urged To Speed Up The Passage Of Bio-safety Legislations
  
• Buckle up for GE bananas in Uganda
  
• Uganda's disease-hit banana crops will not be saved by GM science
  
• Tanzania: Expert Warns Dar on GMOs
  
• Zambia mulls over genetically modified cotton production
  
• Kenya in spotlight as more nations turn to GM foods

More:

• WaPo: "Genetically modified crops get boost over organics with recent USDA rulings"
  
• GE pineapple (Costa Rica)
  
• Floods wash away GE canola crop (hope there weren't any organic farms nearby)
  
• UK Supermarkets sign up to 'sustainable' GM soy label

A Huber/GMO/Roundup Update

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 18:04:10 PM PDT

Scientists Debunk Huber Letter - What Do We Make Of It?

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 12:55:15 PM PST

I still say I want to hear from Huber himself. Let him speak to the media on why he wrote the letter, and let him answer these claims.

What we need to remember here is that ANY time a scientist criticizes biotech, they get attacked. Whether or not their claims are true. In fact, I would say: the more credible the scientist and the claims, the bigger the attack. I pulled out my copy of the book Food, Inc. by Peter Pringle (totally unrelated to the movie) to review some of the past episodes. See below for more.

Science, GMOs, and the Huber Letter

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 18:12:09 PM PST

Now there are some questions arising about the letter. A few people even suggested it is a hoax. So I will share what I know, along with my own perspective and knowledge on GMO safety, which will hopefully give you a barometer to determine whether or not you find me a credible source on this.

First of all, my close friend Judith McGeary, the person who first posted the letter online, personally confirmed with Dr. Huber that he did write the letter and send it to Tom Vilsack. So that much is not a hoax. However, many people are asking who is doing the study and where is the data they have thus far? And that information is not available publicly at the moment. Huber has not yet spoken to the media about his letter, although I believe he will in the near future.

The safe thing to do is to wait until the study is done and published in a journal, the data is public for review, and the researchers behind the study are known. For all we know, as the study continues, this preliminary conclusion will be disproved. Or perhaps the study will be completed, and then a peer reviewer will notice a major flaw in the study. That said, Huber's reputation is pretty solid and it seems that he felt there was enough credibility in the evidence he saw and enough urgency that he wrote this letter and made the issue public.

Personally, I usually disregard studies or claims that GMOs cause this disease or that. I am not a scientist, but I have common sense. I'll believe a claim about GMOs when a credible scientist - or, preferably, several - believes it. Internet rumors are just that.

I also don't believe that there is anything inherently dangerous about GMOs. Simply because something is genetically modified does not make it dangerous or harmful. But it DOES mean that we need to study the heck out of each GM variety of seed before we commercialize it and put it into the food supply. And we should do that because we know quite well by now that containment of a GMO is impossible. Once a GMO is out there, it's out there. If you screw up once, it's game over.

What's more, we need independent science on GMOs - and we do not have that. Not right now. And when scientists DO come forward with anything negative about GMOs, they are attacked. That needs to stop. Why would I believe Monsanto's word that its money-making product is safe anymore than I believe BP's word that its drilling won't cause an oil spill? Monsanto stands to gain a ton of money on each GMO they commercialize, and I have anecdotal evidence of intimidation of scientists by Monsanto from a trusted source. (I would need to get his permission to repeat what he said publicly to really make an accusation, so take my "anecdotal evidence" for what it's worth.)

Right now, I have no interest in eating something that has not had independent science performed by scientists who felt safe and secure to publish their findings without being attacked. Nor do I want to eat something that the biotech companies refuse to even label. If you're so proud of it, label it so I know I'm eating it.

What I do tend to believe are the very logical stories that come out about GMOs - if they come from a credible source. That is, it's easy to understand why Roundup Ready crops increase Roundup use. It's not terribly hard to imagine that Bt crops, which produce a insecticide in every cell, might kill insects (beyond just the targeted pest species). Nor is it a stretch to believe that Roundup resistant weeds are emerging and that farmers will need to spray a stronger, more toxic herbicide in addition to Roundup to get rid of them. Based on all of that, and given what I've read from scientists like Jack Heinemann, I think there is an awful lot of evidence that agroecology can accomplish what we are trying to accomplish with genetic engineering more successfully, with better impacts on the environment, and without as much risk.

So, given all that, do we believe the Huber letter? First of all, I do not think anyone should take it as more than it is: evidence of an alarming preliminary finding that merits more research. Nothing more. But Huber himself seems rock solid and very credible. If he thinks this is a big deal - as he put it, an "emergency" - then there's reason to believe it is. I'll be interested to hear what he has to say once he speaks out about this. And I'll keep an eye out for the finished study, once it's published.

Michael Pollan on NPR About GMOs

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 00:08:36 AM PST

Researcher: Glyphosate (Roundup) or Roundup Ready Crops May Cause Animal Miscarriages

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 14:54:30 PM PST

As the letter, printed below, notes, this research is still preliminary. However, Huber, who has 40 years experience working as a scientist for "professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks," believes this should be treated as an emergency until more research can confirm or disprove these initial findings.

Needless to say, the recent deregulation of GE alfalfa is something to think about, because that will dramatically increase the use of Roundup on animal feed and the feeding of Roundup Ready crops to our livestock. There is more to be said on this, but I want to tread carefully and stick to facts that I can confirm, so stay tuned.

More Info on New GE Corn Enogen

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 22:49:36 PM PST

This show provides some new information that I had not heard before. First of all, Enogen has been approved for both the animal and human food supplies even though it is not intended for either. Therefore, if it is detected in say, taco shells, the taco shells won't have to be recalled. However, the North American Millers' Association is complaining that Syngenta never allowed them to get the necessary proof that Enogen would not be harmful to food production. Rumor has it that as little as one corn kernel in 10,000 will ruin a batch of whatever food producers are making. That's because the extra enzyme, Amylase, breaks down corn starch. Imagine baking something that calls for corn starch and accidentally having that corn starch completely break down... obviously that would impact, if not ruin, whatever you were baking. That's the gripe of the millers about this new GE corn.

If the words of Syngenta's PR guy are correct, if corn growers will get an extra $.40/bushel by growing this corn and selling it to ethanol producers, then a corn grower would have to be quite stupid to grow Enogen and then sell it into the human food supply. That said, stupidity happens. Just ask the Iowa farmer who grew non-Roundup Ready corn and, when it was about knee-high, sprayed the entire field with Roundup and killed the whole crop. That's not a made-up example. I saw the resulting field of dead corn with my own eyes.

The representative from the millers association gave an even more likely scenario, of some Enogen corn kernels remaining in a truck which is then loaded with regular non-Enogen corn, or something like that. If it happened, that would mean a very small amount of contamination, but if it only takes a small amount of contamination to make a real mess of things, you can see why they are concerned.

The reason why we are seeing so many GE crop deregulations now is because the USDA is working to finish everything before farmers buy this year's seeds. They want to allow the new biotech varieties into this crop year. Let's hope this was the last one for this year.

Biofuel Corn: One More @#$%@#$ GMO Deregulated

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 15:24:05 PM PST

The new GE corn, Enogen, is designed to require less energy to turn it into ethanol. For making ethanol with regular corn, it takes 1 unit of energy to produce 1.3 units of energy - and that's not a good deal. Scientists say that a fuel should provide 5 units of energy for every 1 required to make the fuel and transport it to the point of use. (Oil, in case you are wondering, has a 3:1 ratio, making it a better, but still bad, choice.) I have not yet seen data on what the ratio would be of Enogen, but of course, there are other concerns aside from just that.

The top concern, of course, is the mixing of Enogen with corn destined for the human food supply. That's what has food companies fighting against it (for a nice change!). This year, Enogen will only be planted in Kansas and Nebraska. And for anyone who thinks it will be effectively kept out of the human food supply, I have two words for them: Starlink Corn.

I don't have more information on this at the moment, besides a Center for Food Safety press release, posted below. But I would like to leave you with a brilliant Joan Gussow quote about biofuels from her newest book, Growing, Older:

In less than two hundred years, we have used up half the entire legacy of solar energy laid down as petroleum during the life of the planet, so the notion that we can, year by year, use contemporary solar energy to grow ourselves out of the coming petroleum shortfall is inarguably absurd. - p. 48

Dr. Evil is For Genetic Engineering!

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 22:19:44 PM PST

That said, I would have NEVER thought they'd take on the issue of genetically engineered crops in Africa. If there is one thing I'm absolutely sure about, it's that they don't give a shit about starving people in Africa. But they do, perhaps, give a shit about the financial well-being and public acceptance of major biotech corporations. They are probably paid handsomely to give a shit about that, although we will likely never know since they don't disclose their funders.

Their article, if you can call it that, touts a recent "independent study" that was led by Harvard University professor Calestous Juma. (As you might have guessed, Robert Paarlberg was among those who worked on this project.) I've posted the press release sent around by the study authors below. Its headline is "Africa Can Feed Itself Within a Generation" and it calls for increased use of genetic engineering and other new technology, such as nanotechnology.

If you read my recent review and summary of the book Seeds of Famine, you know that the Sahel region of West Africa was fairly food secure until the period of French occupation (which lasted until the 1960's), during which time the French forced the local people to destroy their environment, including their farmland and pastures, and pushed many people onto land that was unsuitable for food production. The result was a major famine from 1968-1974. This book is now 30 years old, but it made many points that seemed worth following up on.

From there, I began researching other parts of Africa. Did the same thing happen elsewhere? I am far from having the answers yet, but I had the good fortune of running into a few acquaintances this past weekend - a woman who served in the Peace Corps in Kenya and her husband, a Kenyan. I brought up the topic of the impact that Europe's conquest of Africa had on food security in Kenya and they gave me an earful.

The first thing they brought up was quite familiar to me: the best land in Kenya is used for growing commercial crops for export. Crops like tea, coffee, and sugar. Small wonder why Kenya, a former British colony, would be a major producer of tea and sugar. Subsistence farmers are pushed to more marginal lands. This seems to me to be a constant around the world, that subsistence farmers are pushed to marginal lands.

Then, they brought up something else: the Nile Waters Agreement. In 1929, Britain (on behalf of Sudan) signed a treaty with Egypt governing the water in the Nile. Most other countries along the Nile (like Kenya) did not exist yet. And they didn't sign the treaty. Unfortunately, they are still "bound" by this treat (says who, you gotta wonder... apparently "the Egyptian military, that's who" is the answer) and thus cannot do ANYTHING that effects water levels in the Nile. That means that Kenya cannot touch the water in Lake Victoria, an enormous lake that it shares with Tanzania and Uganda.

This agreement was renegotiated and renamed the Nile Waters Treaty in 1959, but still only split the water between Sudan and Egypt, with Egypt getting the vast majority. If Kenya were able to use the water from Lake Victoria for irrigation, many of its food issues would be taken care of. Instead, that water goes to grow Egyptian cotton, because of a treaty Kenya never signed.

What I've seen in my travels thus far is that the key word in the phrase "food justice" is justice. Is it fair that the rich and powerful control the best land and the poor and hungry get the worst? Is it fair that a country would give priority to growing to export crops over feeding its own population? Of course, life isn't fair. But we are trying to solve this problem of incredible injustice by finding some agricultural silver bullet that would magically make small plots of marginal lands sprout record amounts of food, and that's ridiculous.

If you're committed to everyone in the world eating, then you need to look at the big picture. According to the World Food Program's estimates, some 4.7 million Kenyans are hungry (1.2 million in rural areas, and 3.5 million in cities). Meanwhile, Kenya was the top tea exporter (by quantity) in the world in 2008, according to the FAO. That year, they also exported 41,649 tonnes of coffee. So what are we more committed to? Letting the invisible hand do what it does and letting the chips fall as they may, or making sure everyone eats? (I'm not saying I have all of the answers, but I do know hypocrisy when I see it.)

AquaBounty Spent $30K Lobbying for Legalizing Frankenfish

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 22:55:10 PM PDT

Their lobbyist is one Steve Kopperud, former senior vice president of the American Feed Industry Association. In other words, he's got over 25 years of experience lobbying the government on behalf of Big Ag. He takes credit for working on every farm bill since 1985, and he worked on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law used to bust animal rights activists. He also worked on the Animal Drug Availability Act and the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act. He's also the founder and past president of the Animal Agriculture Alliance (formerly known as the Animal Industry Foundation). Looks like AquaBounty is getting their money's worth.