J dial - Seeds of destruction: It's NOT just about food

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Seeds-of-destruction--It-by-j-dial-111211-50.html

December 12, 2011 By j dial The subject of genetic modification of food may not be sexy, but there are a few things you should know. One is that Monsanto employees do not want GM food in their cafeterias. When first introduced to the notion of modifying food by inserting foreign genetic material, I inclined in favor of it.  After all, changing the genes of a plant to cause it to yield more, resist pests, and altogether serve us better sounded like a pretty good idea.  How attractive it must be to farmers that a GM seed should increase yields while providing its own internal pesticide.  But at the same time, knowing how often well-intentioned quests to mold nature have gone seriously awry, I gathered some facts before forming an opinion.   Today the US seed industry is dominated by two multinational companies, Monsanto and DuPont, with BASF and Syngenta close behind.  Those who buy GM seeds sign contracts establishing how and when the crop can be grown and excluding the right to save seed for the following year (even though many GM seeds are engineered to produce infertile plants).  These are the arguments often espoused in favor of GM foods:

Click to read more ...

Mike Ludwig - Under Industry Pressure, USDA Works to Speed Approval of Monsanto's Genetically Engineered Crops

Monday 12 December 2011

by: Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report

http://www.truth-out.org/under-industry-pressure-usda-works-speed-approval-monsantos-genetically-engineered-crops/1323453319

For years, biotech agriculture opponents have accused regulators of working too closely with big biotech firms when deregulating genetically engineered (GE) crops. Now, their worst fears could be coming true: under a new two-year pilot program at the USDA, regulators are training the world's biggest biotech firms, including Monsanto, BASF and Syngenta, to conduct environmental reviews of their own transgenic seed products as part of the government's deregulation process.

This would eliminate a critical level of oversight for the production of GE crops. Regulators are also testing new cost-sharing agreements that allow biotech firms to help pay private contractors to prepare mandatory environmental statements on GE plants the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is considering deregulating. 

The USDA launched the pilot project in April and, in November, the USDA announced vague plans [3] to "streamline" the deregulation petition process for GE organisms. A USDA spokesperson said the streamlining effort is not part of the pilot project, but both efforts appear to address a backlog of pending GE crop deregulation petitions that has angered big biotech firms seeking to rollout new products.

Documents obtained by Truthout from a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request reveal that biotech companies, lawmakers and industry groups have put mounting pressure on the USDA in recent years to speed up the petition process, limit environmental impact assessments and approve more GE crops. One group went as far as sending USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack a timeline of GE soybean development that reads like a deregulation wish list. 

Click to read more ...

Greenpeace - Q & A on pharmaceutical crops

http://archive.greenpeace.org/geneng/reports/food/pharmQ&A.pdf

Q: What is a “pharm” crop?

Genetic engineering (GE) corporations are creating crops that produce proteins that are

pharmaceuticals, vaccines, industrial enzymes or reagents for biochemical laboratories.

Genetically engineered (GE) “pharm” crops are mostly grown in open fields, then after harvest the

novel protein is purified for use. Most pharm crops are in pre-commercial field trials, but at least

two proteins used in biochemical and diagnostic procedures are already being grown in corn for

commercial use – avidin and beta-glucuronidase. Other proteins from pharm crops are already in

clinical trials. Open field trials of pharmaceutical crops have been taking place every growing

season in the US since 1992. If these altered crops were released into the environment they

could never be recalled and could enter the food chain.

Click to read more ...

The GMO Right2Know Rally

Gary Null at the March for GMO Right 2 Know Rally on October 1st, 2011 in Prospect Park, New York City. Demand the Right to Know What's in Our Food!

"Amanda Wilson" - ACLU Will Take Gene Patent Case to Supreme Court

Published on Sunday, October 16, 2011 by Inter Press Service

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/10/16-2

by Amanda Wilson

According to her, "comprehensive" breast cancer test from Myriad for other breast cancer mutations costs 3,400 dollars and a supplementary test for the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes, called the BART test, costs 700 dollars. Matloff said that 95 percent of patients she recommends for supplementary testing don't end up being tested because of its high cost.

"I know that we are missing mutations," Matloff told IPS, adding that the BRCA gene mutations are passed down maternally and paternally. "It is going to impact them, their children, their siblings their grandchildren, their nieces and nephews, and from a clinician's standpoint it is horrifying."

Gene patenting opponents also argue that in a new era in which full- genome sequencing is getting faster and cheaper, patents stand in the way of access to new knowledge about how certain genes are related to disease.

"The whole next phase of [research in] genetics and disease is to understand how genes work together," Hanson told IPS. "It is a huge task, and the patents just interfere with it."

Matloff expressed a similar concern that advanced knowledge about genes without access to that knowledge could create problems for patients and care providers.

"It is almost like saying, 'we have your genes right in front of us, it came out of your body, but we are not allowed to look at it, we're not allowed to interpret it, and we are not allowed to give the information back to you,'" Matloff said.

Click to read more ...

"Christophe Noisette" - GMO cultivation drops in EU, except in Spain and Portugal

In the European Union, only eight countries (out of 27) commercially grow GMOs. Cultivations, however, decreased steadily since 2009, except in Spain and Portugal this year, where there is a slight increase. A brief overview of the different official data is collected below [1] In Spain and Portugal, plantings of genetically modified Bt maize has increased slightly between 2010 and 2011. These two countries grow over 90% of transgenic crops in the European Union. In other countries, the trend is consistent with what was found in February 2011 — that of a significant reduction of land devoted to transgenic crops, either Monsanto’s Bt Mon810 corn, or BASF’s Amflora potato.

Click to read more ...

"Paul Johnston" - Why a deregulated approach to GM crops is 'deeply flawed'

Paul Johnston
The Ecologist, 23 August 2011

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/1026452/response_why_a_deregulated_approach_to_gm_crops_is_deeply_flawed.html

Greenpeace's chief scientist Dr Paul Johnston on why recent proposals to expand GM technology support a flawed agricultural system and serve the biotech companies with the greatest vested interests

In a recent Ecologist interview, the scientist leading the controversial trials of genetically modified (GM) potatoes in the UK, Professor Jonathan Jones, outlined his vision for the future of GM crops, proposing economic and policy changes that appear to be based on some sweeping assumptions and his own perceptions of the supposed benefits of these crops. In my view, Prof. Jones’ vision is deeply flawed in relation to its potential scientific, ecological and public policy impacts.

Professor Jones states that in the future, he expects about 90 per cent of several important staple crops, including maize and soy, to be genetically modified, and recommends that public sector funding should be used to help biotech companies further develop these, and other GM crop varieties. In addition, he suggests that the costs of regulation to the GM industry be reduced to zero, and that the products themselves be labeled to promote their (supposed) benefits.

Professor Jones' ambitions for the future of GM would undoubtedly prove highly lucrative for Mendel Biotechnology - which he co-founded and is a science advisory board member - which carries out contract research for the biotechnology giants Monsanto and Bayer. More troubling are the implications of Prof. Jones' suggestions for the conduct of robust science and the use of scientific information in informing policy and the effective regulation of GM crops.

Click to read more ...

"Ethan A. Huff" - Many GMOs are virtually unregulated due to technicalities in current federal law

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

http://www.naturalnews.com/033346_GMOs_regulation.html

(NaturalNews) The continual onslaught of new genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) is a major environmental and human health concern, as not a single approved GMO currently in use has ever been proven, without a doubt, to be safe -- and none of the newest GMOs have been proven safe, either.

But what few people realize is that federal law governing GMOs is so minimal and vague that biotechnology and chemical companies are literally declaring that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has no legal right to regulate their products, and the agency is complying.

The recent "approval" of genetically-engineered (GE) Kentucky bluegrass, for instance, was not really an approval at all, at least not in the way most people think it was.

Click to read more ...

"Mike Ludwig" - Emails Show White House Promotes Genetically Engineered Crops in Wildlife Refuges

Monday 25 July 2011

by: Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report

http://www.truth-out.org/emails-show-white-house-promotes-ge-crops-wildlife-refuges/1311621066

The Obama administration is supporting genetically engineered (GE) agriculture in more than 50 national wildlife refuges across the country and watchdog groups say internal emails among top administration officials reveal that the GE plots are a priority in the White House.

Earlier this year, a settlement in a lawsuit filed by the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and its allies halted the planting of GE crops in US Fish and Wildlife Service wildlife refuges in northeastern states. Now PEER claims the Obama administration is working with the biotech lobby to shield GE plots in refuges from future legal challenges.

A January 10, 2011 email obtained by PEER reveals that biotech lobbyist Adrianne Massey contacted Peter Schmeissner, the senior policy analyst for the White House Office of Science and Technology, about the legal challenge to GE crop plantings in northeastern refuges.

Click to read more ...

ENewspf.com: White House Pact with Industry to Push Genetically Engineered Plants

ENewspf.com

Thursday, 21 July 2011
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science-a-environmental/25563-white-house-pactwith-industry-

In an effort to boost exports, the Obama White House has entered into a joint venture with the agricultural biotechnology industry to remove barriers to the spread of genetically engineered (GE) crops, even on national wildlife refuges, according to documents posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  Today, PEER sued the White House Trade Representative, Office of Management & Budget (OMB) and the State Department to force release of documents detailing their partnership with industry.

Recent successful lawsuits brought by PEER with the Center for Food Safety have underlined the incompatibility of GE crops with refuge habitats, which has strengthened objections from GE-averse nations. The Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO), whose most prominent member is Monsanto, the world's biggest source of GE crops, approached the Obama White House for assistance. In late 2010, the White House formed an interagency "Agriculture Biotech Working Group" consisting of more than 35 officials from ten agencies to promote GE agriculture.  This Working Group includes officials from the White House and its OMB, Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Trade Rep.  It also has officials from State, Justice, Agriculture, EPA and FDA.

Click to read more ...