Seed Magazine: A Battle is Being Waged Over GE Seeds

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 13:47:24 PM PDT

A battle is quietly being waged between the industry that produces genetically modified seeds and scientists trying to investigate the environmental impacts of engineered crops. Although companies have recently given ground, researchers say these firms are still loath to allow independent analyses of their patented - and profitable - seeds.

The article goes on:

In February 2009, frustrated by industry restrictions on independent research into genetically modified crops, two dozen scientists representing public research institutions in 17 corn-producing states told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the companies producing genetically modified (GM) seed "inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good" and warned that industry influence had made independent analyses of transgenic crops impossible.

The article describes how scientists used to be able to just go to the seed store and buy seeds if they wanted to test them. With patented genetically engineered seeds, that is not the case:

If a scientist wanted to compare brands of seeds, for instance, or their environmental impact, he or she had to seek permission from each seed company or gene patent holder. Open access to the study's data and the right to publish that data had to be secured, while, for their part, the companies sought to protect their patents and intellectual property rights. Even if the companies did not object, contract negotiations, made on a case-by-case basis, could be extended and onerous. Making things worse was that with fewer public monies available for farm research, scientists, and their universities, found themselves increasingly dependent on the seed companies for funding.

Here's one more important quote:

For 10 years, Shields says, he and his fellow scientists worked around the companies' restrictions. But they felt that too many scientific issues were not being addressed. In particular, scientists could not be certain that multi-year studies would be renewed or that they'd be allowed to follow up on unexpected findings "which reflects the very essence of scientific inquiry." Such uncertainties, says Shields, meant that many experiments were never initiated.

This is an important article. The end of the article goes on to describe a new development - a voluntary agreement with no enforcement mechanism that the seed companies will loosen up and allow more independent research to take place. There are several catches to this agreement, however. For example, seeds only fall under the agreement AFTER they are commercialized. Thus, there will still be little (if any) independent testing of GE seeds before they are legal. That seems incredibly foolhardy, for obvious reasons. What will be the bigger impact of this agreement: allowing for independent research or merely creating the appearance that there is independent research taking place?

The Supreme Court Decision on Monsanto's GE Alfalfa: Who Won?

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 11:09:00 AM PDT

The lower court decision that the Supreme Court overturned was a two-part move against Monsanto. There was the vacatur, which nullified the USDA's decision to deregulate GE alfalfa, and there was an injunction, which banned most planting of GE alfalfa until the USDA did a proper EIS. The court removed the injunction BUT said that the vacatur alone (which stands) was enough to keep GE alfalfa illegal for now, until the USDA does its EIS. The EIS is a year away from completion.

Also important is this (from the Center for Food Safety):

The Court further recognized that the threat of transgenic contamination is harmful and onerous to organic and conventional farmers and that the injury allows them to challenge future biotech crop commercializations in court.

That's huge.  

Congresscritters Come Out Against GE Alfalfa

by: Jill Richardson

Mon May 24, 2010 at 14:20:14 PM PDT

Below, see the letter they are circulating to members of Congress asking for sign ons as well as the letter to Vilsack himself. If you want your representatives to sign on, give them a call about this or email them and ask them to please sign on.

Monsanto's Supreme Court Hearing

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:42:45 AM PDT

More below.

80+ Groups Oppose Banning GMO Labeling

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 20:39:04 PM PDT

During the first week in May, members of the international community are meeting in Canada to discuss international food labeling standards. This is a part of Codex Alimentarius, a UN agency that develops food and safety standards (and freaks a lot of people out). The U.S. (specifically the USDA and FDA) has drafted a position that opposes a Codex document allowing countries to each set their own rules on labeling genetically modified foods. In other words, the U.S. wants to keep the entire world from labeling GMOs. They want this because U.S. companies make a fortune selling GM seeds, and the U.S. produces a large percentage of the world's genetically modified crops. And one of our governement's top food safety gurus, Michael Taylor, used to work for Monsanto. (That's not the reason they give for their opposition, of course. But who are they kidding?)

Unfortunately (for Michael Taylor), the people of the United States don't all agree with Michael Taylor. Some of us WANT GMOs to be labeled. At the very least, other countries should have the right to require labels even if our country does not. Thus, 80+ groups have signed onto a letter to the USDA and FDA opposing their opposition to Codex letting countries set their own policies on GMO labeling. (In other words, the signers of the letter WANT countries to be permitted to require GMO labeling if they wish.)

Signers of the letter include Consumers Union, Food Democracy Now, the Union of Concerned Scientists, R-CALF USA, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and a vast number of organic food, farming, and consumer groups, anti-GMO groups, pesticide reform groups, food companies, and farms. You can view Consumers Union's press release about the letter below, and you can view the letter here [PDF].

What?!?

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 16:06:01 PM PDT

Let me summarize the article for you: Bla bla bla... drought-tolerant corn... global warming... Africa really fucked... feed 9 billion people... bla bla bla... Gates Foundation.

There. Now you don't have to read it. It says nothing new and contains zero critical thinking or alternate viewpoints. There was one section of the piece that was right on:

Charles Godfray, a professor at the Department of Zoology at Oxford University who recently co-authored a paper in the journal Science  about the challenges of feeding 9 billion people, said that the impact of climate change on agriculture will be negative. Although warming will open up lands in cooler regions for cultivation, it will not compensate for the loss of water and land in areas near the tropics, he said.

"The current system of agriculture is not sustainable," he said. "Water is arterial. We will run out of water in parts of the world."

Yep. The Africa-is-fucked-if-things-don't-change meme is correct. And the African-corn-production-is-in-trouble idea is also correct:

But the continent is drought-prone, with millions of farmers relying on rainfall for their crops grown in small land holdings. Corn is most widely grown, with almost 300 million people in sub-Saharan Africa using it as the main source of food. And it is grown in rain-fed regions prone to crop failures.

Riiight. So how about we grow something other than corn? I'm very disappointed at the New York Times failure to only present one side - a side that is opposed by scientists world wide - on this matter.

ACTION: Tell the USDA to Reject GM Alfalfa!

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 13:36:19 PM PST

Food Democracy Now says:

During the Bush administration, Monsanto illegally won USDA approval for its GMO alfalfa by convincing USDA regulators to bypass a mandatory environmental review. In 2007, a court reversed this decision, ordering the USDA to complete the legally required environmental impact statement (EIS).

Shockingly, the Obama Administration's recent review would approve Monsanto's GMO alfalfa.

The draft USDA EIS was issued in December 2009 and is poised to allow Monsanto's GMO alfalfa on the market, despite the fact that the USDA admits that these seeds will contaminate organic feed that organic dairy farmers rely on to produce organic milk.

According to the CEO of the largest farmer-owned organic dairy coop in the U.S., GMO alfalfa "threatens the very fabric of the organic industry." We can't allow this to happen.

Despite massive public outcry in the past, the USDA's environmental review went so far as to say that U.S. organic consumers don't care about GMO contamination.

Tell Secretary Vilsack that you care about organic contamination and that you want him to stand up for the organic industry and organic consumers.

What you can do BY END OF DAY TODAY:

1) Calling is absolutely the best, and the hold time is not onerous:
White House Comments: 202-456-1111

2) It's also a good idea to submit a written comment by email:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

And also to the USDA:

3) Kathleen Merrigan
Kathleen.Merrigan@usda.gov

4) Tom Vilsack's office
202-720-3631 (they will refer you to the comment line below, but calls might make an impression)

5) and last but not least, USDA Animal Plant Inspection Office Comment Line!!! if this is the ONE call you make:

202-720-3668

Farmer Group Calls FAO Meeting "An Act of Aggression"

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 19:31:00 PM PST

They say:

We take it as an act of aggression, as a profound lack of respect, and as an affront, that the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has decided to meet in Mexico with governments and the private sector, under the false argument that "biotechnology can benefit peasants in poor countries"

They use the word "biotechnology," an intentionally vague and broad term, when we all know that the real purpose is to promote genetically modified (GM) crops, which have never benefited farmer families, and never will.  It is an act of aggression against, and a provocation of, the Mexican people and the peasant and indigenous families of the world, to come to Mexico to promote GMOs, when it is precisely in Mexico that there is an intense struggle to stop the contamination of our ancestral maize varieties with GM pollen. This contamination puts the center of origin and center of biodiversity of a crop that is so important to our culture and to humanity, at risk.

Wow. I've posted the entire press release below and I will continue to provide updates on the FAO meeting and responses to it as I receive them.

Peruvians Say "Transgenicos? No, Gracias" (GMOs? No Thanks)

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 10:53:04 AM PST

A New Utterly Stupid Way to Make "Ethical Meat"

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 22:45:51 PM PST

We are most likely stuck with factory farms, given that they produce most of the beef and pork Americans consume. But it is still possible to reduce the animals' discomfort - through neuroscience. Recent advances suggest it may soon be possible to genetically engineer livestock so that they suffer much less.

If you're so concerned about animal pain, don't eat them. Every living thing feels pain, and every living thing dies. Either they die via slaughter or of disease, injury, or predation. Death is not fun no matter what. But all of LIFE doesn't have to be suffering too, hence the widespread opposition to factory farms. According to this idea, we would bypass that by rending the animals insensitive to that pain. I'm sorry but that's not enough. You've still got the environmental problems associated with factory farms, not to mention the unfairness to anyone living near factory farms who suffers from health problems or sees their property value decline (or just has to live with the constant smell of shit) as a result of the pollution and smell.  

Hooray! India Hit the Pause Button on GM Eggplant

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 12:53:00 PM PST

"Public sentiment is negative. It is my duty to adopt a cautious, precautionary, principle-based approach," Mr Ramesh said.

He said the moratorium on growing BT brinjal - as the variety of aubergine is known in India - would remain in place until tests were carried out "to the satisfaction of both the public and professionals".

The minister said "independent scientific studies" were needed to establish "the safety of the product from the point of view of its long-term impact on human health and environment".

Imagine that. Using the precautionary principle and obtaining independent studies. Hooray!

Book Review: The War on Bugs by Will Allen

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 12:36:39 PM PST

So - with his firsthand observations of food grown without chemicals and his knowledge of the toxicity of common farm chemicals - Allen went to work finding out where our dependence and trust of pesticides came from in the first place. His findings actually surprised me. I knew part of the picture, which I wrote about in my own book. I don't think my book was inaccurate, but Allen fills in a lot of details and really makes it clear what happened and how.

More below.

GMO Corn Linked to Organ Damage

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 18:19:10 PM PST

The biggest question for me is: Are the American people a population of lab rats? Apparently so. These varieties are legal in the U.S. MON810 goes by the trade name YieldGard Corn Borer and MON863 goes by the trade name YieldGard Rootworm Corn in the U.S. and Canada. NK603 sells under the name Roundup Ready corn. If I understand things right, many farmers I met in Iowa used "triple stacked" corn, which means that all 3 of these traits were engineered into the same seeds.

As of 2009, according to the USDA, 17 percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is "Bt" corn, 22 percent is "RoundUp Ready," and 46 percent has more than one trait stacked into it. Altogether, GM corn makes up 85 percent of the corn we grow. Translation: Unless you eat organic (and probably even then because of genetic pollution), congratulations! You are a lab rat! Enjoy the organ damage.

(Of course, Monsanto's already claimed that this study isn't true and that their products do not cause organ damage. I'd like to see further study happen - ASAP! And, in the meantime, how about pulling Monsanto's GM corn off the market until the science is conclusive one way or the other? I, for one, do NOT want to be a lab rat, thankyouverymuch.)

Would You Like Some Frankenrice With Your Chinese Takeout?

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 08:27:35 AM PST

• It is Bt rice, meaning that it produces its own pesticide

• While the Chinese claim the rice will reduce pesticide use by 80%, that projection fails to consider that the rice will be producing its own pesticide. There will most likely be a reduction in additional pesticides sprayed on the rice, but that does not necessarily translate to a reduction in pesticides once you add in the Bt produced by the rice itself.

• China is not yet commercially producing Bt rice - it will do so in 2-3 years.

• Most of China's rice is consumed domestically. However, some of it is exported. Out of about 59.5 million tonnes of rice produced by China, they export about 600,000 tonnes annually.

If you are going to China, you may actually be able to avoid their GMOs. Cotton is not eaten anywhere, and the Chinese don't really eat corn, papaya, or tomatoes. Rice is eaten but it's seen as a food for poor people who cannot afford anything better. Also, the Chinese say that a person who eats too much rice gets fat. Rice is not automatically served at restaurants unless you request it, and no self-respecting banquet host would ever let a bowl of rice be seen on the table. I still ate quite a bit of rice in China, but only because I like rice.

Report: GM Crops Make Pesticide Use Go UP!

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 21:45:37 PM PST