(NaturalNews) The tides may be turning for agri-giant Monsanto, the multi-national company most recognized for the propagation of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) around the world. According to a recentNew York Timesarticle, Monsanto’s new “SmartStax” variety of GMO corn has failed miserably, and the company’s stock prices have plummeted by nearly 50 percent since the beginning of 2010.

Until recently, Monsanto’s stock value had been steadily rising since 2008, but as its new GMO varieties have failed to live up to expectations, sharepricesand profits have been plummeting. SmartStaxcorn, which is far more expensive than previousGMOvarieties, has failed to achieved desired yields, as has the company’s newer variety of GMO soybeans. Both failures have led not only to major price reductions forseeds, but also far less overall sales byfarmers.

Monsanto’s strategy has been to continually insert increasing amounts of new genes into seeds to make them perform better, and subsequently increase prices for farmers. But that predatory strategy has failed, as farmers are less willing these days to buy such seeds, especially at premium prices. And many farmers simply no longer trustMonsanto.

Sales of Monsanto’s RoundUp formula have also plummeted, due in part to the fact that cheaper generics have started to penetrate the market, and because the formula simply is not working like it used to. New RoundUp-resistant “superweeds” are emerging that have rendered the product largely useless.

You can find out more about Monsanto by visiting:http://www.naturalnews.com/Monsanto…

Unfortunately, Monsanto is not the only player in the GMO game. And rather than regress back to non-GMO seeds, some farmers are simply purchasing GMO seeds from other companies like DuPont that have seen their market share grow as Monsanto’s has decreased. But as the public wakes up to the truth about the dangers of GMOs, perhaps the entire GMO industry will eventually wither and die, much like theweedsand pests that it claims to eliminate.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/029976_Monsanto_corn_failure.html#ixzz1avTGSTGg

(NaturalNews) Many Indian farmers and concerned citizens are taking the offensive against the attempted takeover of their agriculture system by multinational biotechnology giants like Monsanto. A group known as Kisan Swaraj Yatra (KSY) has been mobilizing and gathering support from farmers, and touring the country in protest of genetically-modified (GM) crops that are destroying the nation’s agriculture.

Recently, more than 50 farmers from KSY stormed Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU) to demand that it stop being “the agent of multinational corporation Monsanto” with its trial of Bt cotton, brinjal and corn. According to the group, these crops significantly disrupt the domestic seed market and cause a massive reduction in income levels for farmers. And the group is making several other stops across the nation to raise awareness and create further alliances.

“The overwhelming message from farmers and non-farmers, rural and urban areas, is that such a large mobilization to save Indian agriculture is the crying need today,” explained KSY. “The Yatra is raising issues like support systems for farmers, remunerative prices, control over seeds, land and other resources, forced displacement and the vicious cycle of high-cost chemical agriculture.”

One of the major problems with GM crop cultivation is that it puts farmers at the mercy of corporations like Monsanto. Instead of being self-sufficient and able to save domestic and heirloom seeds every year for subsequent plantings, farmers have to purchase GM seeds from the manufacturer every year. And GM crops also require heavy pesticide and herbicide applications that destroy the environment, among other things, even though their producers often claim otherwise.

KSY has put together an online petition (http://www.kisanswaraj.in/petition2/) to demand that the Indian government put its people first and stand up against the GM takeover of Indian agriculture. Be sure to check out the petition and lend your support.
http://www.kisanswaraj.in/petition2/

Sources for this story include:

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listi…

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/030255_India_GMO.html#ixzz1autRr9Yi

Whole Foods dumps Silk Soy.

Silk, started by one of Boulder, Colorado’s natural products titans, Steve Demos, and now owned and controlled by mega-corp Dean Foods, was just dealt what must come as a pretty big blow–they’ve been cleaved from their strongest customer base–the conscious consumers who built Silk, back when it was owned by Mr. Demos, into a major player and first real alternative to milk.

For more, click here or here or here or here. Or here.

Excerpt via Planet Green:

The Cornucopia Institute claimed victory against the largest soymilk producer in the country this week, after a landmark deal with Whole Foods:

“Saying that its relationship with Dean Foods had ‘chilled,’ Whole Foods indicated it was bringing in a new branded organic soymilk partner, Earth Balance…’Dean Foods has been roundly criticized for taking the organic out of Silk, and now the marketplace and consumers are passing their judgment,’ said Mark Kastel, Cornucopia’s senior farm policy analyst. ‘They took what once was a pioneering 100% organic brand, before they acquired the company in 2003, and cheapened the product at the expense of American farmers and consumers. Now they are paying a price for their naked profiteering,’ Kastel added.”

In addition, Whole Foods wants Earth Balance’s soymilk products to be made strictly from soybeans grown in the U.S. That stipulation likely comes as a direct response to Silk’s initial shift–even before it gave up on organic–away from domestic soybeans when it started sourcing (organic, at first) from China. …for the rest, click here.

Excerpt via elephriend Alica Wallace of Boulder Daily Camera:

Move comes in wake of WhiteWave shifting Silk away from certified organic soybeansFourteen years ago, a burgeoning Boulder company — WhiteWave Inc. — was responsible for launching Silk soymilk, a brand that is now the category leader.

So when Whole Foods Market wanted to boost its organic soymilk options a year after Dean Foods’ WhiteWave Foods shifted most of its Silk products away from certified organic soybeans, the Austin, Texas, grocer turned to a burgeoning Boulder County firm — one stocked with former White Wave employees.

Whole Foods this week announced an agreement with Longmont-based Earth Balance under which the natural foods division of New Jersey-based spreads company Smart Balance Inc. would launch its line of organic soymilks at Whole Foods stores nationwide…for the rest, click here.

I’ll leave you with a remarkable, though tangential factoid:

“The NY Times reports that Silk spent $29.1 million on advertising in major media last year.”

Key Update: via the good folks at at Silk Soy:

[Dear Waylon]

Just wanted to chime in quickly regarding your [article]. We appreciate your level of objectivity, and the fact that you allowed us to answer your questions in the video. However some of the other articles you link to are a bit misleading, and the headline is inaccurate.

Silk actually hasn’t been kicked out of Whole Foods. They have limited our distribution in a few regions, but there are still a large number of stores carrying our Organic and Natural products.

[editor's note: this represents a hugely important point--one that contradicts all the other articles I'd read, some of which are linked/referenced below.]

And while we are now offering the Natural soymilk options, we’re still the leading organic provider out there. Just to add a little context, we sell three times as much organic soymilk than all of our competitors combined. Which means we support more organic soybean acres than anyone else in the U.S. as well.

[editor's note: For now: getting even partially booted out of Whole Foods will change that balance significantly--an article I read estimated that a Silk Soy rival, Earth Balance, will nearly double in revenues overnight.]

[editor's note: love it. So no Silk beans from South America, China?]

After a few of the stories you link to hit, we offered up some additional facts via our blog, which you can see here and here…

…We appreciate your willingness to hear and feature our side of the story, journalists like you keep companies like us honest. Hopefully we can continue to work together and keep the dialogue going.

Every bean we source, organic and natural, is done so domestically. We do not source any beans (or other ingredients) from China. Soon, you’ll be able to see where those beans come from down to the county, as we’re poised to launch a new online tracking tool to add more transparency to our sourcing operations.

JB
WhiteWave Foods

~

Whole Foods cuts Dean Foods’ “natural” Silk Soy milk–instead goes with organic brands.

~

Last year, Silk Soy–while continuing to offer a somewhat higher-priced organic option–pushed the majority of its soy milk to “natural” (the beans still weren’t genetically modified [GMO], which is great).

It was a blow to the green movement–and one that changed Silk, overnight, from the world’s largest organic brand into, well, not.

Recently, I interviewed my friends at the Dean Foods-owned White Wave/Silk Soy about their decision to go “natural.” To their credit, they were open about the up- and downsides.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/waylon-lewis/whole-foods-dumps-silk-so_b_739278.html?ir=Food

Recently the unelected potentates of the EU Commission in Brussels have sought to override what has repeatedly been shown to be the overwhelming opposition of the European Union population to the spread of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in EU agriculture. EU Commission President now has a Maltese accountant as health and enviromnent Commissioner to rubber stamp the adoption of GMO. The former EU Environment Commissioner from Greece was a ferocious GMO opponent. As well, the Chinese government has indicated it may approve a variety of GMO rice. Before things get too far along, they would do well to take a closer look at the world GMO test lab, the USA. There GMO crops are anything but beneficial. Just the opposite.

What is carefully kept out of the Monsanto and other agribusiness propaganda in promoting genetically manipulated crops as an alternative to conventional is the fact that in the entire world until the present, all GMO crops have been manipulated and patented for only two things—to be resistant or “tolerant” to the patented highly toxic herbicide glyphosate chemicals that Monsanto and the others force farmers to buy as condition for buying their patented GMO seeds. The second trait is GMO seeds that have been engineered genetically to resist specific insects. Contrary to public relations myths promoted by the agribusiness giants in their own self-interest, there exists not oné single GMO seed that provides a greater harvest yield than conventional, nor one that requires less toxic chemical herbicides. That is for the simple reason there is no profit to be made in such.

Giant super-weeds plague

As prominent GMO opponent and biologist, Dr Mae-Wan Ho of the  Institute of Science in  London has noted, companies such as Monsanto build into their seeds herbicide-tolerance (HT) due to glyphosate-insensitive form of the gene coding for the enzyme targeted by the herbicide. The enzyme is derived from soil bacteriumAgrobacterium tumefaciens. Insect-resistance is due to one or more toxin genes derived from the soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis). The United States began large scale commercial planting of GMO plants, mainly soybeans and corn and cotton around 1997. By now, GM crops have taken over between 85 percent to 91 percent of the areas planted with the three major crops, soybean, corn and cotton in the US, on nearly 171 million acres.

The ecological time-bomb that came with the GMO according to Ho, is about to explode. Over several years of constant application of patented glyphosate herbicides such as Monsanto’s famous and highly Roundup, new herbicide-resistant “super-weeds” have evolved, nature’s response to man-made attempts to violate it. The super-weeds require significantly more not less herbicide to control.

ABC Television, a major US national network, made a recent documentary about the super-weeds under the rubric, “super weeds that can’t be killed.”[1]

They interviewed farmers and scientists across Arkansas who described fields overrun with giant pigweed plants that can withstand as much glyphosate as farmers are able to spray. They interviewed one farmer who spent almost €400000 in only three months in a failed attempt to kill the new super-weeds.

The new super-weeds are so robust that harvester combines are unable to harvest the fields and hand tools break trying to cut them down. At least 400000 hectares of soybean and cotton in Arkansas alone have become invested with this new mutant biological plague. Detailed data on other agricultural regions is not available but believed similar. The pro-GMO and pro-agribusiness US Department of Agriculture has been reported lying about the true state of US crop harvest partly to hide the grim reality and to prevent an explosive revolt against GMO in the world’s largest GMO market.

Superweed

One variety of super-weed, palmer pigweed can grow up to 2.4 meters high, withstands severe heat and prolonged droughts, and produces thousands of seeds with a root system that drains nutrients away from crops. If left unchecked, it takes over an entire field in a year. Some farmers have been forced to abandon their land. To date palmer pigweed infestation in GMO crop regions has been identified in addition to Arkansas, also in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, New Mexico, Mississippi and most recently, Alabama and Missouri.

Weed scientists at the University of Georgia estimate that just two palmer pigweed plants in every 6 meter length of cotton row can reduce yield by at least 23 percent. A single weed plant can produce 450 000 seeds. [2]

Roundup toxic danger being covered-up

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the US and the world at large. Patented and sold by Monsanto since the 1970s under the trade name Roundup, it is a mandatory component of buying GMO seeds from Monsanto. Just go to your local garden store and ask for it and read the label carefully.

As I detail in my book, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, GMO crops and patented seeds were developed in the 1970’s with significant financial support from the pro-eugenics Rockefeller Foundation, by what were essentially chemical companies—Monsanto Chemicals, DuPont and Dow Chemicals. All three were involved in the scandal of the highly toxic Agent Orange used in Vietnam, as well as Dioxin in the 1970’s, and lied to cover up the true damage to its own employees as well as to civilian and military populations exposed.

Their patented GMO seeds were seen as a clever way to force increased purchase of their agricultural chemicals such as Roundup. Farmers must sign a legal contract with Monsanto in which it stipulates that only Monsanto Roundup pesticide may be used. Farmers are thus trapped both in buying new seeds from Monsanto each harvest and buying the toxic glyphosate.

France’s University of Caen, in a team led by molecular biologist, Gilles-Eric Seralini, did a study that showed Roundup contained one specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA. Seralini’s team demonstrated that POEA in Roundup was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than even the glyphosate itself. Monsanto refuses to release details of the contents of its Roundup other than glyphosate, calling it “proprietary.” [3]

The Seralini study found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns! The French team studied multiple concentrations of Roundup, from the typical agricultural or lawn dose down to concentrations 100,000 times more dilute than the products sold on shelves. The researchers saw cell damage at all concentrations.

Glyphosate and Roundup are advertised as “less toxic to us than table salt” in a pamphlet from the Biotechnology Institute promoting GMO crops as ‘Weed Warrior.’ Thirteen years of GMO crops in the USA has increased overall pesticide use by 318 million pounds, not decreased as promised by the Four Horsemen of the GMO Apocalypse. The extra disease burden on the nation from that alone is considerable.

Nonetheless after introduction of Monsanto GMO seeds commercially in the USA, use of glyphosate has risen more than 1500% between 1994 and 2005. In the USA some 100 million pounds of glyphosate are used on lawns and farms every year, and over the last 13 years, it has been applied to more than a billion acres. When questioned, Monsanto’s technical development manager, Rick Cole, reportedly said the problems were “manageable.” He advised farmers to alternate crops and use different makes of herbicides produced by Monsanto. Monsanto is encouraging farmers to mix glyphosate with its older herbicides such as 2,4-D, banned in Sweden, Denmark and Norway for links to cancer and reproductive and neurological damage. 2,4-D is a component of Agent Orange, produced by Monsanto for use in Vietnam in the 1960s.

US Farmers turn to organics

Farmers across the United States are reported to be going back to conventional non-GMO crops instead. According to a new report from the US Department of Agriculture, retail sales of organic food went up to $21.1 billion in 2008 from $3.6 billion in 1997.[4] The market is so active that organic farms have struggled at times to produce sufficient supply to keep up with the rapid growth in consumer demand, leading to periodic shortages of organic products.

The new UK Conservative-Liberal coalition government is strongly backing lifting a de facto ban on GMO in that country. UK Chief Scientific Adviser, Prof. John Beddington, recently wrote an article in which he misleadingly claimed “The next decade will see the development of combinations of desirable traits and the introduction of new traits such as drought tolerance. By mid-century much more radical options involving highly polygenic traits may be feasible.” He went on to promise “cloned animals with engineered innate immunity to diseases” and more. I think we can pass that one up, thank you.

A recent study by Iowa State University and the US Department of Agriculture assessing the performance of farms during the three-year transition it takes to switch from conventional to certified organic production showed notable advantages of organic farming over GMO or even conventional non-GMO crops. In an experiment lasting four years—three years transition and first year organic—the study showed that although yields dropped initially, they equalized in the third year, and by the fourth year, the organic yields were ahead of the conventional for both soybean and corn.

As well, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) has recently been published, the result of three-year deliberation by 400 participating scientists and non-government representatives from 110 countries around the world. It came to the conclusion that small scale organic agriculture is the way ahead for coping with hunger, social inequities and environmental disasters. [5] As Dr Ho argues, a fundamental shift in farming practice is needed urgently, before the agricultural catastrophe spreads further across Germany and the EU to the rest of the world.[6]

Endnotes:

[1] Super weed can’t be killed, abc news, 6 October 2009. See also,Jeff Hampton,  N.C. farmers battle herbicide-resistant weeds, The Virginian-Pilot, 19 July 2009, http://hamptonroads.com/2009/07/nc-farmers-battle-herbicideresistant-weeds

[2] Clea Caulcutt, ‘Superweed’ explosion threatens Monsanto heartlands, Clea Caulcutt, 19 April 2009,http://www.france24.com/en/20090418-superweed-explosion-threatens-monsanto-heartlands-genetically-modified-US-crops

[3] N. Benachour and G-E. Seralini, Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells, Chem. Res. Toxicol., Article DOI: 10.1021/tx800218n

Publication Date (Web): December 23, 2008.

[4] Carolyn Dimitri and Lydia Oberholtzer, Marketing U.S. organic foods: recent trends from farms to consumers, USDA Economic Research Service, September 2009, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB58/

[5] International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, IAASTD, 2008,http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=Press_Materials&ItemID=11

[6] Ho MW.UK Food Standards Agency study proves organic food is better. Science in Society 44, 32-33, 2009.

F. William Engdahl  is the author of Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

	This table is for reference only and gives a general idea as to the high fluoride content in some foods and beverages.

	BEVERAGES:
	Juices

	6.8mg/l Gerber’s White Grape Juice #3 0.98 – 1.20mg/l Minute Maid OJ #6,#7 3.0mg/l Gerber’s Graduate Berry Juice #6 0.78mg/l Dole Pineapple #7 >0.6mg/l Prune Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Cranberry Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Pear Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Red Grape Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Cherry Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Apple Grape Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Apple Juice #13

	Soft Drinks

	0.82 -0.98mg/l Coca Cola Classic #6,#7 1.12mg/l Diet Coke #8 0.29mg/l Snapple #7 0.73mg/l Sprite #8 0.85mg/l Hawaiian Punch #8 0.45mg/l Hansen’s Soda #7 0.37mg/l Capri Sun #7 0.79mg/l Publix Orange Juice #8 0.44mg/l Gatorix Punch Concent. #8 0.56mg/l Lipton Ice Tea #8

Tea see also: Green Tea Article (L=Leafs, P=Prepared) UK TEAS

Iced Tea

180.16mg/kg Coarse Tea(L) #19 72.62-89.02mg/kg Green Tea(L) #19 71.11mg/kg Refined Green Tea(L) #19 30-340 mg/kg Black Tea(16 samples) #20 4.57mg/l Tea (P) #17 1.01-5.20mg/l De-caffeinated Teas(P) #21 2.58-3.69mg/l Milk Tea(fr.Brick Tea) #23 77mg/kg Pu’er Brick Tea (L) #24 441mg/kg Bianxiao Brick Tea(L) #24 6.0-6.9mg/kg Herbal Teas (L) #20 7.8mg per cup 1 Cup Black Tea (P) #16 15.6mg/L “Wisdom of the Ancients” Instant Green Tea (P) #37 2.95mg/L Dr. Oetker Black Tea (P) #38 3.99mg/L Apicha Black Tea (P) #38

	Fruit & Vegetables

	0.3 – 13mg/kg Potatoes #12 22mg/kg Potato Waste #30 0.2 – 70.0 mg/kg Spinach #12 14.0mg/kg Rice #12 14.0mg/kg Peas #12 8.2mg/kg Yams #4 2.10mg/kg Corn #4 17.7mg/kg Beets #4 0.205mg 1 Cup Cooked Kale #16 0.180mg 1 Cup Cooked Spinach #16 1mg 1 Medium Apple #33 125 – 250 mg/kg Alfalfa #36

	Sugar & Substitutes

	13.0 mg/kg Sugar #5 10.0ppm Fructooligosaccharides #5 12.0ppm Polydextrose #5 8.0ppm Sorbitol #5

	Meat

	9.0-14.0mg/kg Mech.De-bond Pork #11 2.0-3.0 mg/kg Hand De-boned Pork #11 14.0-42mg/kg Mech.De-boned Beef #11 2.0-4.0mg/kg Hand De-boned Beef #11 1.0mg/kg Chicken Skin #13 1.23mg/kg Cooked Veal #17 1.11mg One Big Mac #1

	Dairy

	0.72mg/l Lucerne 2%Milk #7 0.074mg 1 Cup Nonfat Milk #16 1.50mg/kg Butter #4 1.62mg/kg Cheese #4

	Fish

	61.0mg/kg Canned Sardines #1 61.73mg/kg Shrimp #19 3.36mg/kg Shellfish #17 4.57mg/kg Some Canned Fish #17 26.0mg/kg Mackerel #4

Water

SEE ALSO: F- in Mineral Waters

	0.7-1.2mg/l Tap Water in fl.areas 0.21mg/l Gerolsteiner Wasser #9 8.5mg/l Vichy Water #10 0.05mg/l Reverse Osmosis Water #9

Cereals

SEE ALSO: Fluoride in Cereals

	2.1mg/kg Kellogg’s Fruit Loops #6 1.02mg/kg Cooked Wheat Cereal #17 7.2mg/kg Wheat #4 9.6mg/kg Shredded Wheat #41

Infant Foods

See also: Formula/Soy Unfluoridated Area Fluoridated Area

	Mixed Cereal 0.93ppm 3.85ppm #32 Oatmeal Cereal 0.98ppm 4.87ppm #32 Barley Cereal 1.99ppm 4.30ppm #32 Rice Cereal 2.11ppm 6.35ppm #32

	0.01-8.38mg/kg 238 Infant Foods #29 1.08-2.68mg/l Soy-based Infant Formula #31 0.024-0.172mg/l Breastmilk (area w/0.7ppm in tap water) #22

	Strained Meats

	Chicken w/broth 5.29ppm Range 1.94-10.64ppm #32 Turkey w/broth 0.39ppm Range 0.34-0.43ppm #32

	Other

	250 – 765mg/kg Soil #39 44.0-220.0mg/kg Dolomite #5 0.66-6.8mg/kg 10 Table Salt Varieties #1 7.0mg/kg Sea Salt #1 1.36mg/kg Peanuts #4 3mg 1 Teaspoon Bone Meal #18 200 – 350 ppm Fluoridated salt #40 231 – 310 ppm “Himalaya Salt” #40

	SEE ALSO: Salt Fluoridation

	130.0-160mg/kg Gelatin #15 328 mg/kg Super Kelp Tablets #35

	Dental Products

	1920mg/kg Aquafresh For Kids #6 6,000-12,000ppm Topical Fluoride Gel #23 500-1,500ppm Most Toothpaste #23 12,300ppm Radent Prophy Paste #26 12,300ppm Topex Fluoride Foam #27 2000ppm School-based Oral Mouthrinse Program #28 60,000-120,000ppm Silver Fluoride Solutions #23

	Permissable Cryolite Content Application Federal Register Cryolite (Sodiumfluoaluminate)=>Fluorine=54.3% see also: Pesticides

Proposed

Current

	45mg/kg 7mg/kg Cabbage #14 95mg/kg 7mg/kg Citrus Fruits #14 35mg/kg 7mg/kg Collards #14 30mg/kg 7mg/kg Eggplant #14 180mg/kg 7mg/kg Lettuce, head #14 40mg/kg 7mg/kg Lettuce, leaf #14 10mg/kg 7mg/kg Peaches #14 55mg/kg none Raisins #14 30mg/kg 7mg/kg Tomatoes #14 45mg/kg 7mg/kg Tomato Paste #14

	References
	#1 – Siebert & Trautna, Dept Expt Dentistry, Univ Würzburg, Germany. “Z. Ernaehrungswiss. 24 (1985) pp. 54-66″. [Abstract:”Fluoride content of selected human food, pet food and related materials”, Fluoride 19(3):152-153 (1986) #2 – Walters CB – Journal of Sci Food Agric 34:523-8(1983) #3 -  Jan G. Stannard, et al. “Fluoride Levels and Fluoride Contamination of Fruit Juices,” Journal of Pediatric Dentistry, 16(1):38-40, (1991) #4 -  Leading Edge Research Group #5 -  Lab tests , courtesy Cathy J.Rookard, Director, ACIDD (Association for  Children and Infants with Digestive Disorders) #6 -  Fluoride Risk Assessment Symposium in San Diego, June 19-21,1998;(local media conducted an analysis of fluoride content in some foods) #7 -  Lab Tests, San Jose, California (non-fluoridated area) #8 -  Lab Tests, Jupiter, Florida (non-fluoridated area) #9 -  Label(Canada) #10- Lantz O, Jouvin MH, De Vernejoul MC, Druet P – “Fluoride-induced chronic renal failure”  Am J Kidney Dis  10:2, 136-9 (1987) #11 – Field RA, Kruggel WG, Riley ML – J. Animal Science 43 ,755 (1976) #12 – Bredemann G – Biochemie und Physiologie des Fluors und der industriellen Fluor-Rauchschaeden. Berlin, (1956) #13 – Journal of the American Dental Association (Heilman, et al.,July 1997) #14 – Federal Register: August 7, 1997(Volume 62, #152) (PF-750;FRL-5727-3) #15 – Kumpulainen, J.,Koivistoinen,P.:Residue Reviews 68 p. 37 (1977) #16 – BabyCenter Editorial Team w/ Medical Advisory Board (http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/674.html#3) #17 – Dabeka WD, McKenzie AD – “Survey  of lead, cadmium, fluoride, nickel, and cobalt in food composites and estimation of dietary   intakes of these elements by Canadians in 1986-1988”  Journal of AOAC International  78 :4,  897 -909  (1995) #18 – Label, Kal-Mart Meal Powder #19 – Asanami S, Tanabe Y, Koga H, Takaesu Y – “Fluoride Contents in Tea and Sakura Shrimp In Relation To Other Inorganic Constituents” Shikwa Gakuho,  89(8):1407-12 (1989) #20 – Nabrzyski M, Garjewska R – “Aluminum and Fluoride in Hospital Daily Diets and in Teas” Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 201 (4):307-10 (1995) #21 – Chan JT, Koh SH – “Fluoride content in caffeinated, decaffeinated and herbal teas” Caries Res 30(1):88-92 (1996) #22 – Latifah R,Razak IA – “Fluoride levels in mother’s milk” J Pedod 13(2):149-54 (1989) #23 -Gotjamanos T, Afonso F – “Unacceptably high levels of fluoride in commercial preparations of silver fluoride”  Dent J 42(1):52-3 (1997) #24 – Cao J, Zhao Y, Liu JW -  “Safety evaluation and fluorine concentration of Pu’er brick tea and Bianxiao brick tea” Food Chem Toxicol 36(12):1061-3 (1998) #25 – Cao J, Zhao Y, Liu J – “Brick tea consumption as the cause of dental  fluorosis among children from Mongol, Kazak and Yugu  populations in China” Food Chem Toxicol 35(8):827-33 (1997) #26 – http://www.pascaldental.com/Fluoride.htm #27 – http://www.sultandental.com/PGflfoam.htm #28 – Oxford County Board of Health, Community Dental Services at (519)539-6121/ 1- 800-755-0394http://www.ocl.net/oxf/ocbh/dnt-rins.html #29 – Heilmann JR, Kiritsy MC, Levy SM, Wefel JS – “Fluoride Concentrations of Infant Foods” JADA 857 (1997) #30 – Federal Register: March 12, 1997; Volume 62, Number 48, Page 11437-11441 #31 – Silva M, Reynolds EC – “Fluoride Content of Infant Formulae in Australia” Aust Dent J 41(1):37-42 (1996) #32 – Singer L, Ophaug R – “Total Fluoride Intake Of Infants” Pediatrics 63, p.460 (1979) #33 -Waldbott GL, Burgstahler AW, McKinney HL – “Fluoridation:The Great Dilemma” Coronado Press (1978) #35 -Trautner, K et al – “Die Bewertung der Fluoridzufuhr mit der Nahrung. Studien zur Bioverfuegbarkeit” Dtsch. Zahnaerztl.Z.38:50-53 (1983) #36 – Milhaud G, Riviere F, Enriquez B – “Experimental study of fluorosis in lambs” Ann Rech Vet 6(4):369-77 (1985) #37 – PFPC 2004 – Norwest Labs, Langley, British Columbia, Canada #38 – Buzalaf MAR, Bastos JRM, Granjeiro JM, Levy FM, Cardoso VE da S, Rodrigues MHC – “Fluoride content of several brands of teas and juices found in Brazil and risk of dental fluorosis” Rev Fac Odontol Bauru 10(4):263-267 (2002) #39 – Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft  (2000) #40 – PFPC – Salt Fluoridation (2003) #41 – PFPC – Fluoride in Cereals (2001)

Lettuce……………….. 8ppm
Parsley………………. 7.8ppm
Stinging Nettle……… 7.8ppm
Spinach……………….. 5.7ppm
Dill, garden Dill… …..5.3ppm
Allspice………………..5ppm
Clover Pepper………..5ppm
Jamaica pepper………5ppm
Pimenta………………. 5ppm
Bitter melon, Sorosi 4.8ppm
Rhubarb………………. 4ppm
Pistachio……………… 3.8ppm
Black Currant……….. 2.8ppm
Coconut……………….. 2.7ppm
Cauliflower………….. 2.5ppm
Cabbage,
Red cabbage
White Cabbage………..2.5 ppm
Apple
(Malus domestica BORKH.)… 2.1ppm
Ben Nut, Drumstick Tree, Horseradish Tree…. 4ppm
Black bean, Garden bean,
Green bean String bean……… 2ppm
Ginger………. 2ppm
Cloudberry… 1.9ppm
Carrot………. 1.8ppm
Red Currant, White Currant.. 1.8ppm
Brazilnut………………………. 1.7ppm
Tomato (Miller)…….1.7ppm
Pecan………………….1.6ppm
Black Walnut…………1.6ppm
Dog Rose, Dobbrier, Rose…. 1.5ppm
Rown Berry………. 1.5ppm
Cashew………1.4ppm
Shagbark Hickory…… 1.3ppm
Almond………….1.3ppm
English filbert …..1.2ppm
Butternut…… 1.1ppm
Bell pepper, Cheery Pepper,
Cone Pepper, Green Pepper,
Paprika, Sweet Pepper…… 1ppm
Pea…….. 1ppm
Mandarin, Tangerine…..1ppm
Gooseberry….1ppm
Peach ….1ppm
Onion…. 1ppm
Strawberry…. 1ppm

Source: Jim Duke, U.S. Agricultural Research Service 1992 http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/

More:
http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/fluoride/fluoridetoo-14.html#P1425_142839

GMO Salmon Near FDA Approval—Public’s Input Not Wanted

This is a Call to Action! The only thing that can stop this travesty is a massive public outcry.

by Heidi Stevenson

3 July 2010

As the Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) nears approval for the first genetically engineered salmon, the public’s views on the issue are not wanted. These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will be the first animals approved for food, but the FDA is treating them like veterinary drugs, so the approval process is not open to the public and none of the documentation is available for inspection.

The modified fish, called AquAdvantage^® by their developer, AquaBounty Technologies, grow to market size very quickly. AquaBounty claims the fish can be ready for sale in 16-18 months instead of the usual 3 years for standard farmed salmon.

What We Know…

AquaBounty implanted two genes into the genetically engineered salmon. One is a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon of the Pacific Ocean, and the other is a gene from the pout fish that turns the growth hormone gene on. These keep salmon from turning their growth hormones off when it’s cold, so they continue to grow.

The FDA’s approval process requires submission of seven data sets. The first five have been approved. AquaBounty believes the last two sets are close to approval.

Even more revealing, though, is that the FDA has been discussing whether to require labeling of the GMO salmon—which sounds very much like they’ve already decided to approve AquaBounty’s salmon. As it now stands, the FDA does not require any other GMO food to be labeled, unless it’s significantly different from its natural counterpart or contains an allergen that the natural form doesn’t. There’s a belief that the public is “confused” by being informed.

AquaBounty’s CEO, Ronald L. Stotish, tries to create the image that their purpose is to benefit humanity. He has said that the GM fish would help grow food for the world with fewer resources. Of course, it ignores the massive amount of food the fish will need to grow so fast, the land required to provide the feed for the fish, transportation for getting feed to the fish, and the use of land that might grow vegetables or grass to graze animals for far less efficient food production in the fish. With so little basis in reality on this point, it’s difficult to believe any of AquaBounty’s statements about safety, health, or environmental standards.

…And What We Don’t Know

The method used to transfer genes is not being provided to the public. If a virus was used as a vector to transfer the genes, then the potential for inducing cancer in people who eat the salmon exists. The FDA does not seem to believe that we have the right to know what gene-transfer technique is used.

Gene Transfer?

Gut bacteria, present in everyone and necessary for life, are known to exchange genes. A study by the UK’s Food Standards Agency has shown that horizontal gene transfer can occur with a single serving of food. Is this possible with AquAdvantage salmon? We don’t know, and the FDA asks us to trust them that they’ll make the right decision.

Allergens?

Do the transferred genes produce new proteins that could be allergenic in some people? Again, we have only the word of the corporation that hopes to profit from the sale that a deadly allergen isn’t created by their product.

Nutritional Quality?

The nutritional quality and taste of the GM salmon is supposedly indistinguishable from natural Atlantic salmon. That’s what AquaBounty says—but the fact is that these are not the same as wild fish. They are less mature than the fish normally eaten now. Why should we believe their claims…especially since the FDA won’t show us any documentation to back them up?

Fish Suffer?

Do the fish suffer from abnormally rapid growth? Do they suffer from their altered anatomy? We don’t know. AquaBounty, of course, says they don’t. The FDA doesn’t believe we have the right to know.

There is one fact that we do know about these fish. They’ll be factory-farmed. Fish raised in such conditions generally suffer horribly in extremely crowded conditions eating toxic food, which is then transferred to us when eaten. For years, farmed salmon have been known to be dangerously infested with dioxins, PCBs, and toxaphene, which are known as carcinogens, and several other dangerous chemicals.

Fish Sterile & Unable to Escape?

AquaBounty claims that the fish are sterile females and that they cannot escape from the fish farms. There are two clear problems with these claims. The first is the assumption that the techniques used to make the fish sterile will last. Genetic alterations have been known to reverse, so we don’t know if these salmon would necessarily be unable to breed. The claim that they can’t escape from the farms because they aren’t located near the ocean is belied by the fact that AquaBounty does not intend to raise the fish themselves. Their plan is to sell eggs to fish farms. Are we to believe that they won’t sell to a farmer because he’s located by the ocean?

We do know that farmed fish are already escaping into the wild with devastating effects on the wild salmon. Should we believe the promises of AquaBounty that their fish cannot escape and, if they do, that they cannot breed?

Peter Melcher of the UK’s Soil Association, says

Once you have bombarded an animal with other genes, the DNA is unstable, and there is no guarantee these fish will remain sterile. It poses far too great a risk to wild salmon. A fish that grows so quickly is also likely to lose some of the nutritional benefits. There is no such thing as a free salmon lunch and we will pay the price.

What we do know about these fish is terrible. What we don’t know could be even worse. But the FDA doesn’t think we have the right to know, and AquaBounty is only telling us what they want us to hear.

Who Runs AquaBounty?

When trying to understand the nature of a corporation and its focus, it helps to look at who is on its board of directors. In AquaBounty’s case, it’s very revealing.

Richard J. Clothier is the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board and Chairman of the Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee. His career has put him at the head of agribusiness corporations, including Robinson plc, which makes packaging for supermarket products, and Spearhead International Ltd, which operates factory farms in several countries. Before that, he was a CEO with Dalgety plc, a now-defunct manufacturer of products sold by supermarkets. He retired recently as Group Chief Executive of PGI Group plc, an agribusiness firm involved in tea, flower, and produce production in Africa.

Other key figures with AquaBounty are former officers and executives of major multinational corporations, investment firms, medical device manufacturers, and pharmaceuticals. Stotish, the President and CEO, was previously an officer with a pharmaceutical firm involved in genetic manipulation. Elliot Entis, a board member, specializes in commercial and regulatory issues of biotech food introduction. Another board and audit committee member, Richard Huber, was a chairman and president of the giant health insurer, Aetna.

The collection of men at the helm of AquaBounty is remarkable for their connections with the worst sort of Agribusiness, Big Pharma, and multinational corporations. These are men who are practiced at the art of making money at any cost to the public and environment. It seems that they’ve found the perfect vehicle for their sort of expertise in AquaBounty.

The FDA’s “Public Meeting”

The FDA will probably hold a “public meeting” of an advisory committee in early fall, supposedly for obtaining public input. It’s a standard procedure before final approval of a drug. Limited information, consisting of material, picked by the FDA, that supports the product, is given to the public. It promises to be no more than a show. Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology project director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says that the public is not given adequate time to analyze the data provided.

Take Action!

Belying the true status of GM salmon in the FDA, a government official has stated anonymously, “It’s going to be a P. R. issue.” Let’s hope so!

Here’s what you can do:

Let’s stop Frankenfish!

Bayer BioScience NV has been ordered to pay $4.9 million in attorneys’ fees to Dow AgroSciences LLC following a ruling that four Bayer patents for genetically modified corn were invalid because of inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Judge James A. Beaty Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina issued the ruling Tuesday, another blow to Bayer, which was ordered by a federal court in Missouri to pay nearly $8.4 million in attorneys’ fees toMonsanto Co. in a similar dispute.

The current suit was originally brought by Aventis CropScience NV, which alleged Dow infringed four patents. The roles were reversed in Missouri, with Monsanto bringing suit and seeking a declaration that the Bayer patents were invalid. Bayer acquired Aventis CropScience in 2002.

The North Carolina suit was eventually stayed pending the outcome of the Missouri suit. In Missouri, the court granted summary judgment to Monsanto, finding the patents were invalid, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision and remanded the case for trial.

At trial, however, it was determined again the patents were invalid, and the judge determined the case was exceptional, allowing Monsanto to seek attorneys’ fees from Bayer. The findings were once more appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed them.

The stay was lifted in the North Carolina case in December 2008. Because the Federal Circuit upheld the trial court’s findings that the patents were invalid and the case exceptional, Bayer agreed it could not argue otherwise in the North Carolina action.

Bayer did contend, however, that Dow’s attorneys’ fees request of just over $5 million should be denied, or at least reduced, because the amount was unreasonable. It also claimed that it had already been severely punished in the Monsanto case by being forced to pay fees there.

Judge Beaty, however, was not persuaded by Bayer’s arguments.

“The court’s decision to award attorneys’ fees and costs does not hinge on whether a party has been sufficiently ‘punished’ in another proceeding, but instead, focuses on the issue of whether in the court’s discretion, [Dow] should be reimbursed for the cost of defending against a suit which Bayer has conceded was based upon invalid and unenforceable patents,” the judge said.

“The court notes that Bayer initiated these proceedings against [Dow] in this forum, seeking to exploit the protections afforded by the United States patent laws for patents that it improperly procured based upon its own inequitable conduct,” he added.

Ultimately, the judge awarded $4.9 million to Dow, trimming about $190,000 from the initial fees request to accommodate a reasonable rate for travel time and correct partners’ hourly billing rates.

A second defendant in the case, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., previously settled its fees request with Bayer.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 5,254,799; 5,767,372; 6,107,546; and 5,545,565.

Dow is represented by Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Bayer is represented by Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice.

The case is Aventis CropScience NV v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. et al., case number 00-463, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

To see court documents and read more articles on this subject, visit Law360.com.

After Monsanto’s GM Meltdown in the USA…

Syngenta comes to the rescue to keep the transgenic treadmill going Prof. Joe Cummins

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members’ website and can be downloaded here

MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION. FOR PERMISSION, AND REPRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT ISIS. WHERE PERMISSION IS GRANTED ALL LINKS MUST REMAIN UNCHANGED

One major impact of crops genetically modified (GM) for insect resistance is that the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Cry toxins conferring insect resistance are specific for particular pests. After the Bt crops have been planted for several years, the target pest is usually diminished, leaving an ecological niche into which another insect pest species may invade. This has already happened with Bt cotton in India [1] (Mealy Bug Plagues Bt Cotton in India and Pakistan, SiS45) and in the United Stated, where the tarnished plant bug has emerged as the major pest in the cotton belt [2] (GM Crops Facing Meltdown in the USA,SiS 46).

Now Christoph Then of Test Biotech, an independent German research group, reports on the spread of the western bean cutworm (Striacosta albicosta) and the massive damage inflicted on Bt maize in the United States [3]: “The infestation has been observed since the year 2000.…. This cutworm has historically been confined to very limited regions and did not cause any major problems in maize crops. For several years now the pest has been spreading into more and more regions within the US Corn Belt and causing substantial economic damage. In 2009, maize plants affected by the western bean cutworm were even found in Canada for the first time. According to scientific publications, this new pest has been caused by the large-scale cultivation of genetically engineered plants expressing Cry1Ab such as MON810. It is seen as a case of ‘pest replacement’, often found where there is extensive use of pesticides in industrial agriculture. Pest replacement means that new ecological niches open up which other competitors then occupy. In this case, a naturally occurring competitor of the western bean cutworm has been intentionally suppressed by the extensive cultivation of Bt maize plants, thus allowing the new pest to spread on a large scale and heavily infest the crop. A whole arsenal of insecticides – some of them highly toxic – and genetically engineered multi-stacked maize are recommended for controlling the pest.”

Syngenta MIR162 to the rescue

For the most part, the pesticides used to combat new pests are toxic, expensive and leave residues on food and feed.  The Bt Cry toxins available for genetic modification have not proven   sufficiently effective against the newly emerged pest. Syngenta Corporation was quick to fill the pesticide gap by introducing a maize line called Agrisure Viptera to control western bean cutworm.  That GM maize line is derived from event MIR162 incorporating a Bt vegetative insecticidal protein, VIP3Aa [4]. VIP toxins are produced in growing Bt cells as distinct from the Cry toxins that are produced as crystals in stationary stage sporulating Bt cells. Agrisure Viptera was cleared for commercial release by USDA/APHIS and USEPA in time for the growing season in 2010.

Event MIR162’s Bt insecticidal vegetative protein gene vip3Aa20 is driven by a maize polyubiquitin promoter with the CaMV 35S 3’ polyadenylation termination signal. A selectable marker pmi encoding mannose-6-phosphate isomerise from E. coli, also driven by the maize polyubiquitin promoter, withAgrobacterium nopaline synthase terminator. The phosphomannose-isomerase converts mannose-6-phosphate to fructose-6-phosphate. Only transformed cells are capable of utilizing mannose as a carbon source. Transgenic plants regenerated from selected transformed immature embryo-derived calli contained the pmi gene and the gene was transmitted to the progeny in ‘Mendelian’ fashion [6]. (This is based on the statistical misuse of failure to depart from ‘Mendelian ratios’ as evidence of transgene stability,  as pointed out by ISIS [7] GM Rice Unstable (isisnews 9/10). The Syngenta petition for non-regulated status of MIR162 maize was an extensive document describing the construction of the transgenic maize line and its field testing for productivity and resistance to pests. VIP3Aa20 produces pores in the gut cell membrane of insect pests that caused the cells to burst; its target cell proteins are different from those of the Cry proteins. The impact of MIR163 on non target organisms were examined, but only with the VIP3Aa20 protein produced in the bacterium E coli, which is  different from that expressed in the transgenic maize.  The latter is transcribed from a DNA sequence that had been altered to optimise production of VIP3Aa20 protein in maize, differing by several amino acids, but assumed, unjustifiably, to be insignificant [6].

In 2005, USDA/APHIS  determined that Syngenta Corporation cotton event COT102 with transgene VIP3A was no longer regulated, and is now used to control a number of Lepidopteron pests  [8, 9].

Syngenta’s patented death proteins

Syngenta corporation, producer of chemical and biological pesticides, has patented the vip genes for use in transgenic crop plants and microbes [10]. The patent provided evidence that Vip3A toxin produces apoptotic cell death, a series of cytological changes including the production of membrane bound apoptotic bodies and activation of endonuclease enzymes that cleave chromatin into discrete fragments. Apoptosis (meaning petals falling from a flower) or programmed cell death, is common to all cells with discrete nuclei. Apoptosis is a part of normal development, but that induced by VIPp3A toxin is not. In order to function fully in the plant cells the vip3A gene is modified in its coding sequence, and is given additional extraneous sequences: a strong promoter to drive transcription, an intron to facilitate transfer of the pre-messenger RNA from nucleus to cytoplasm, a transcription terminator, and signal for polyA addition. The insect VIP3A receptor was identified and its ‘death domain’ recognition sequence characterized. Organisms whose cells have nuclei generally have families of receptors with ‘death domain’ recognition sequences, just as the insect VIP3A receptor is a unique member of a family of receptors [11, 12]. The death domain of VIP proteins is a 60 to 70 amino-acid motif, that is present in many proteins and phylogenetically conserved, as I pointed out previously [13] (Death Domains in New Bio-pesticides, SiS 26). The effects of VIP proteins on non-target organisms need to be very thoroughly investigated. USDA /APHIS finding of no significant impact (FONSI) has allowed the unconfined cultivation and use of COT102. The environmental assessment responded to public comment about apoptosis,  but did not discuss the topic extensively [12].

Continuing trangennic treadmill

Syngnta seems to have quickly turned adversity into opportunity. Nevertheless, once the western bean cutworm occupied niche is subdued, another resistant pest will appear to provide further opportunity for enriching biotech corporations in the endless transgenic treadmill [14] (see Glyphosate Resistance in Weeds – The Transgenic Treadmill, SiS 46).

The only escape from the transgenic meltdown may well be organic cropping [2].

AN increase of 40% in Bundaberg Regional Council water rates has been flagged as the council prepares for fluoridation of its water supply.

The State Government has committed to having fluoridation in place for all Queenslanders by 2012, but Cr Alan Bush said it had reneged on its promise of funding to help councils put in the necessary infrastructure.

“They initially said they would help us with the costs, but now they say they are not going to do it for fluoridating underground water, only surface water,” he said.

Cr Bush, who oversees water and wastewater issues, said 70% of the region’s drinking water came from underground water, and the council would have to put in the infrastructure to fluoridate it.

“We’re going to have to increase water rates by 40% or not provide as good a service,” he said.

Cr Bush said fluoridation was one area where the State Government set the guidelines with no debate or community consultation.

“We only drink 1% of our treated water – the rest of the fluoridated water will go on sports fields or down toilets,” he said.

Cr Bush said one of the biggest challenges coming up was a council plan to sewer the whole coastline strip from Burnett Heads to Elliott Heads.

This would also involve the decommissioning of the East Bundaberg waste water treatment plant and the building of a super treatment plant to handle the result.

Cr Bush said the project had not been fully costed yet and he had no idea what the price would be.

One project on hold was a plan to pump treated water from Bargara to a holding pond for Bundaberg Sugar to use for irrigation.

“It’s still on the books; we’re hoping to get some federal funding,” he said.

Cr Bush refused to rate himself or the council, although he said it was doing a good job compared with its neighbours.

“How can you rate yourself? That’s up to others to do,” he said.