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.

The fastest growing health and wellness claim among store brands in 2009 was “GMO free,” with sales of these items up 67% to $60.2 million, says Tom Pirovan of Nielsen Co.

The great thing about this new report is that it shows how quickly the market responds when it sees a shift in consumer demand. And even better, that there are starting to be enough of us out there who care about where our food comes from and what’s in it that we’re actually starting to reshape the food system!

I know we still have a big fight ahead of us, but it’s important to take a step back every now and then and celebrate the small victories along the way.

So… Way to go, guys!! Keep spreading the word and supporting brands that use good practices!

Since Sustainable Food News doesn’t allow re-posting of their articles, you can read the whole Nielson article here.

Learn about GMOs here:
Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Corn Linked to Organ Failure

Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops

SOURCES & MORE RESOURCES:

What are GMOs? (Wikipedia)

Non-GMO Shopping Guide (PDF)

How to Avoid GMOs in Restaurants

17 Ways to Avoid GMO Food

GreenMuze: How to Avoid GMOs

Aaron’s Environmental: Organic Certifications, Labels, and What They Mean

Top 5 Ways to Avoid GMOs in Your Food

Fox News Kills Monsanto Milk Story

The World According to Monsanto

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TAKE ACTION:

Take the No-GMO Challenge

Take the “Replace Roundup” Challenge and help divert millions in revenue from Monsanto!

From starrjaded on YouTube:

Please send the USDA your thoughts about releasing Genetically Engineered Alfalfa! We have until February 16th 2010. A 60-day comment period is now open until February 16, 2010. This is the first time the USDA has done this analysis for any GE crop, so the final decision will have broad implications for all GE crops. The failure of the agency to address the impacts of GE alfalfa will have far-reaching consequences for farmers and organic consumers. Let’s not be Monsanto’s guinea pigs! Also in my state of Oregon a similar GE sugar beet case is pending the results of the Alfalfa court case. THIS IS OUR WINDOW! If we allow GE alfalfa to be planted then it will open the flood gates for all GE CROPS to be introduced into our food supplies! TAKE ACTION TODAY PLS! Be on the right side of history, take 15 sec’s and send the USDA your thoughts with a pre written letter (you can change at will

http://ga3.org/campaign/alfalfaEIS/g8gbsni2ojebbw7t?

http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2027

Don’t believe Monsanto’s green-washing. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), aren’t meant to feed the world or survive the evermore frequent droughts and floods brought on by global warming – they’re designed to sell Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup and the patented “Roundup Ready” genes now spliced into millions of acres of corn, cotton, soy, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa. A 2009 study showed that, in 13 years, Roundup Ready crops increased herbicide use by 383 million pounds.

During the Bush administration, the movement to stop GMOs was making progress. Reflecting public concern over GMOs, in 2007, a Federal court ruled that the Bush USDA’s approval of Roundup Ready alfalfa violated the law because it failed to analyze risks such as the contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa and the development of “super-weeds.” The court banned the planting of GM alfalfa until USDA completed a rigorous analysis of these impacts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice affirmed the national ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa planting, but Monsanto is appealing. They’re taking organic alfalfa farmers all the way to the Supreme Court!

Barack Obama, despite promising us “change we can believe in,” is unfortunately turning out to be just as pro-GMO as the preceding Bush and Clinton administrations, packing the USDA and other government bureaucracies with Monsanto men and biotech cheerleaders such as former Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack, named “Biotech Governor of the Year” in 2001, now serving as USDA Secretary. Vilsack, notorious for flying around in a Monsanto company jet during one of his previous election campaigns, is now busy trying to get the court-ordered ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa lifted by issuing a new draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that denies or downplays the obvious environmental and human health hazards of GM alfalfa.

Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a key source of dairy forage and hay. The first perennial crop to be genetically engineered, GM alfalfa can regenerate itself from its root-stock. It is open-pollinated by bees, which can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles, spreading Monsanto’s patented, foreign DNA to non-GMO and organic crops. Widespread GMO-contamination of organic alfalfa is inevitable if the Obama Administration successfully distorts science and ignores public opinion and allows Monsanto’s GM Roundup Ready alfalfa to be planted across the U.S.

Mounting evidence shows damage to animals and humans from unlabeled and untested Frankenfoods. Consumers who ingest GM alfalfa are likely risking their health; since even the USDA’s EIS admits that, “acute toxicity in mice was observed.”

According to the EIS, consumers who ingest foods with residues of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide may experience “general and non-specific signs of toxicity from subchronic and chronic exposure to glyphosate includ[ing] changes in liver weight, blood chemistry (may suggest mild liver toxicity), liver pathology, and weight of the pituitary gland.”

The EIS warns that, “Based on upper estimates of exposure … infants consuming fruit and all age groups consuming vegetables may be at risk of adverse effects associated with acute exposure to glyphosate [the active ingredient in Roundup] residues.”

Consuming milk and meat from animals fed crops that are genetically engineered is also risky. In Europe, where farmer and consumer rejection has kept GMO crop acreage to a bare minimum, massive quantities of GMO-tainted animal feed is imported from the U.S. and a survey of 60 samples of 12 different milk brands sold in stores in Italy demonstrated the presence of GM maize sequences in 15 (25%) and of GM soybean sequences in 7 samples (11.7%).

Most consumers, especially organic consumers, are determined to avoid Roundup Ready alfalfa, and meat and dairy products derived from animals ingesting Roundup Ready alfalfa, but according to the EIS, we don’t have that right because, “At the present time, there is no policy regarding the unintended presence of GE (genetically engineered) material in organic products or food, consistent with the fact that the NOP (National Organic Program) is a process-based program for certifying a farm or production system as organic, and not a product-based program that tests or certifies individual products as organic.”

We must stop the Obama administration from taking away our right to grow and consume organic and GMO-free food. The “change we believe in” is a healthy and sustainable future based upon organic food and farming and a green economy.

Follow Ronnie Cummins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/OrganicConsumer

source: huffingtonpost.com

A study demonstrates the toxicity of three genetically modified corn varieties from the American seed company Monsanto, according to the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering.

“For the first time in the world, we’ve proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized … Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems,” said Gilles-Eric Séralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation.

The researchers based their analyses on the data supplied by Monsanto to health authorities to obtain the green light for commercialization, but they draw different conclusions after new statistical calculations.

Sources:

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Safety/gmo/the_health_hazards_of_gm_corn_0901100909.html

Organic Consumers Association December 11, 2009

Truthout December 2009

Int J Biol Sci 2009

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Monsanto’s own study has come back to bite them.

And rightly so—they clearly concealed the results of this study, massaging the data until they could slide it by as supporting the safety of their product.

It took an independent team of researchers to reexamine data and get the truth out.

Isn’t it interesting that every time Monsanto conducts scientific research on its own products, the conclusions are that they are safe? But each time independent scientists study them, all kinds of horrific side effects are uncovered.

Some former Monsanto employees report that anything that interferes with advancing the commercialization of their biotechnology is pushed aside.

One former Monsanto scientist said he knew of several fellow Monsanto researchers involved in feeding studies who have all (secretly) switched to organic milk.

What does that tell you?

If You Plant It, They Will Come

The United States has planted more GM crops than any other country every year since 1996, when GM crops were first made available commercially.

It’s bad enough that the United States allows GM crops to be grown at all—and it’s even worse that we grow two-thirds of the GM crops worldwide.

By far, corn is the crop taking up the most acreage.

The 2007 U.S. corn crop was one for the record books at 13.1 billion bushels of production, eclipsing the previous high set in 2004 of 11.8 billion bushels, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The 2007 production level was up 24 percent from 2006[i].

Corn has exploded as a result of our dependence upon high fructose corn syrup, as well as its use in ethanol, although corn-based biofuel appears to be on the decline due to its excessive carbon footprint.

United States Rather Slow to “Get It”

The US is painfully slow to wise up about the damaging effects of GM corn.

Germany recently banned the GM corn variety called MON 810, which had been the only remaining GM crop permitted in that country. MON 810 had already been banned in Austria, Hungary, Greece, France and Luxembourg.

What do they know that we don’t?

We are still reserving tens of millions of acres for genetically modified corn!

The Scientific Studies Couldn’t Be Clearer

Biology professor Bela Darvas of Hungary‘s Debrecen University discovered that Monsanto’s Mon 810 corn is lethal to two Hungarian protected species and one insect classified as rare. Now Monsanto refuses to give Darvas any more Mon 810 to use in his studies.

They also refused his request for Mon 863, another GM variety.

So, not only has MON 810 been shown to cause serious damage to animals, but it may also wipe out protected plant and insect species.

A mountain of evidence now exists about the troubling effects of GM corn:

• Rats fed GM corn have kidney, liver, and blood abnormalities whereas rats fed non-GM corn had normal organs and blood.
• GM corn has led to serious reproductive problems in mice. Mice fed Monsanto’s GM corn showed lower fertility and had offspring with lower body weight.
• An Italian study in 2008[ii] found significant disturbances in the immune function of mice fed GM corn.
• Another study showed that mice fed bt corn (bt stands for “bacterial toxin”— engineered to manufacture a natural bacterial toxin) sufferedmultiple immune system responses, “as if they were eating the pure bt toxin alone.”
• Several US farmers reported sterility and fertility problems among pigs and cows fed GM corn.
• In Germany, twelve cows that had eaten GM corn mysteriously died.
• In feeding trials with chickens, twice the number of chickens died when fed GM corn as those fed non-GM corn.

Adding to the potential devastation is the fact that corn is a wind-pollinated plant, which means it can spread from one acre to another. While growers of GM food often say their crops will be contained and unable to contaminate nearby fields, from an environmental perspective, contamination between GM and non-GM crops is generally acknowledged to be unavoidable.

What can stop windstorms, tornadoes or other weather from blowing GM pollen or seeds onto non-GM crops?

Not a whole lot.

The environmental impact of GM crops may be worse than the health impact. Genetic pollution is self-propagating. It is altering our biosphere in ways that could outlast climate change and nuclear waste.

You can’t “recall” genes from the environment—just like putting the genie back in the bottle.

Although Monsanto doesn’t believe (or admit) this is a possibility, their shortsighted focus on profits is blinding them to the very real threats this technology is posing to the viability of the human race.

Monsanto’s influence in the government is legendary. Consequently, policy makers have not heeded the warnings to do long-term safety testing.

How Genetic Modification is Actually Executed

The making of a GM seed isn’t the highly precise operation you might expect.

According to Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette, once a gene is identified that creates a protein that they want, it is shot into the DNA with a “gun.”

They don’t care where the gene ends up…as long as it attaches somewhere.

This blasting creates all manner of problems. In fact, collateral damage is a given—5 percent of the surrounding genes can be disrupted! The DNA is sometimes truncated, sometimes mutated, creating proteins that are different and predictablyunpredictable.

Is it any wonder, then, how genetically modified foods carry with them so many unintended and devastating consequences?

According to Jeffrey Smith, the most common result of GM is surprise side effects. These side effects come in four main categories:

1. Allergenic
2. Toxic
3. Carcinogenic
4. Anti-nutritional

To bump up the desired GM effects, developers have been inserting what’s called a “promoter,” which has been derived from a virus. A promoter acts like a switch to turn on the gene it’s attached to. And the promoter’s action is not confined to the gene it rides in on—it’s been known to turn on other genes around it, permanently, at high volume.

It can turn on an allergen, a toxin, a carcinogen—we don’t know—it’s genetic roulette.

The promoters could switch on dormant viruses, producing super-diseases. One pesticide-tolerant gene called “the liberty link” could turn your body into a pesticide factory for life. The viral gene might transfer to your body a permanent suppression of your viral defenses.

We just don’t know.

And the reason we don’t know is that the government refuses to demand the rigorous testing of these GM products BEFORE permitting them into your food supply.

A Bad Gut Feeling

GM industry representatives falsely claim that when you eat a genetically modified food, the DNA is destroyed by digestion.

Researchers have now proven this is false.

British researchers demonstrated that GM DNA from crops can find its way into human gut bacteria, creating health risks. The concern is that the antibiotic marker genes inserted with the GM material could cause a person to be resistant to antibiotic medicines.[iii]

The study by Newcastle University in the UK was conducted on 7 human volunteers who, in the past, had their lower intestines removed and now use colostomy bags. After eating a meal containing GM soy, researchers were surprised to find that a relatively large proportion of GM DNA survived the digestive process.

In 3 of the 7 volunteers, they found bacteria had taken up the herbicide-resistant gene from the GM food at a very low level.

And this was after only one GM meal.

Not only that, but researchers also found “Roundup ready” gut bacteria from past GM soybean consumption. This was NOT from the current experiment—it was evidence that similar gene transfer had occurred in the past, from prior consumption of GM “Roundup ready” soy. (Roundup ready is the term used to mean soy that was engineered to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup.)

Michael Antonio, a senior lecturer in molecular genetics at King’s College Medical School in London, said this study was significant because the researchers demonstrated that you can get GM plant DNA in your gut bacteria, which was previously considered impossible.

This is the first clear evidence that antibiotic marker genes can jump to the bacteria in your stomach and increase your risk for an antibiotic-resistant infection.

The Mission to Exterminate GM From Our Food Supply

There are two strategies the non-GM movement is working on to rid our food supply of GM products:

1. Labeling all foods for their GM/non-GM status
2. Educating the public so that it will choose non-GM foods over GM foods.

The labeling campaign is making progress, thanks to the persistence of Jeffrey Smith and the Institute for Responsible Technology, an organization whose goal is to end the genetic engineering of our food supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. If you would like to sign the petition to President Obama in support of mandatory labeling of GM foods, click here.

But don’t wait for the labels to protect yourself and your family.

Nearly all GM foods can be avoided by steering clear of four basic food products:

1. Corn
2. Soy
3. Cottonseed
4. Canola

Additionally, avoid the following produce that is commonly GM by purchasing only organic varieties:

• Zucchini
• Crookneck squash
• Hawaiian papaya
• Sugar derived from sugar beets (new GM crop as of 2009)

For more specifics, the Institute for Responsible Technology has compiled an excellent Non-GMO Shopping Guide that you can download for free.

According to Jeffrey Smith, when people are educated about GM foods and provided a choice of products to buy, surveys show that at least 90 percent will opt for non-GM.

Therefore, between labeling products and a massive education campaign, GM foods will become a thing of the past. Once the tipping point is reached, the demand for non-GM products will be so fierce that market forces will smother the GM market once and for all.

[i] “2007 corn crop a record breaker, USDA reports” (January 11, 2008) USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2008/01_11_2008.asp

[ii] Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A and Mengheri E. “Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice” J Agric Food Chem (16 Nov 2008) Summary athttp://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2470

[iii] “Would you like frankenfries with that?” (July 17, 2002) Greenpeace Internationalhttp://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/gm-genes-found-in-human-gut

(NaturalNews) On September 21, a California federal district court found that the USDA’s 2004 approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” sugar beets was unlawful. The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) deregulated GMO sugar beets without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. Plaintiffs in the case, filed in January 2008, include the Center for Food Safety, the Organic Seed Alliance, the Sierra Club, and High Mowing Seeds.

Failing to account for cross-pollination of the GMO seeds with nearby fields of conventional and organic varieties was one of many unreasonable deficiencies cited by the court in the original USDA approval of the crop. Plaintiffs in the case are also emphasizing in no uncertain terms that they will not tolerate the continued pandering to the likes of Monsanto by the USDA. The USDA’s job is to protect America’s growers, farmers, and consumers, not multinational corporations who patent genetically-altered seeds.

When Monsanto originally began marketing its “Roundup Ready” GMO sugar beet seeds, it enticed farmers with promises that the crops could be doused with herbicide up to five times a year without killing the crop. What it failed to disclose was the potential for entire crop fields to be cross-contaminated with genetically modified seeds, devastating the availability of untainted conventional and organic crops. The environmental impact of using GMO seeds is tremendous and could wipe out the non-GMO crops entirely.

Another issue not addressed by APHIS is the fact that continual applications of glyphosate, the herbicide marketed by Monsanto as Roundup, has led to the growth of Roundup-resistant weeds commonly referred to as “superweeds”. Similar to antibiotic “superbugs” that become resistant to antibiotics, these superweeds require ever-increasing amounts of not only Roundup but other more potent, toxic herbicides just to keep them under control. There are currently millions of U.S. land acres that are infested with superweeds.

An independent analysis of USDA data by the former Executive Director of the National Academy of Sciences’ Board on Agriculture, Dr. Charles Benbrook, has revealed some startling information. Between 1996, when “Roundup Ready” genetically engineered crops were first introduced, and 2004, herbicide use in the U.S. has increased by 138 million pounds.

A 2008 study conducted at the University of Caen in France found that Monsanto’s Roundup concoctions triggered the death of human embryonic, placental, and umbilical cells in vitro. The dilution levels used in the study were far below the recommendation levels used in agriculture and were meant to replicate the amount ingested due to residue left on food.

Despite the tremendous victory this case represents, there is still the unfortunate reality that the lead defendant in the case was USDA head Thomas Vilsack, an Obama hand pick who heavily supports genetic engineering. Other appointments to top USDA positions under the Obama administration include many former Monsanto executives, perpetuating the Bush-era legacy of revolving-door politics that favors corporate agribusiness and GMOs at the expense of food freedom and consumer protection.

In his ruling, Judge Jeffrey S. White has scheduled a meeting on October 30 to deliberate the remediation phase of the case that may include injunctive relief against the use of GE sugar beets.

Sources:

Victory! Court Finds USDA Violated Federal Law by Allowing Genetically Engineered Sugar Beets on the Market – The Center for Food Safety

Genetically Engineered Sugar Beet Approval Illegal, Judge Rules – Environment News Service

Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells – American Chemical Society

Genetically Engineered Crops, Obama Administration, USDA: Food Politics – gourmet.com

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/027209_USDA_sugar_beets.html#ixzz1aw6nhCrc

The Basics:

What’s a GMO?

A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another in an attempt to obtain a desired trait or characteristic, hence they are also known as transgenic organisms. This process may be called either Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM); they are one and the same.

What foods are GM?

Currently commercialized GM crops in the U.S. include soy (91%), cotton (88%), canola (80-85%), corn (85%), Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%), zucchini and yellow squash (small amount), and tobacco (Quest® brand). About half of the sugar beets grown for sugar in 2008 were GM and current projections are that about 90% grown in 2009 will be GM.

What are other sources of GMOs?

Products derived from the above, including oils from all four, soy protein, soy lecithin, cornstarch, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup among others. Also:

• meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that have eaten GM feed (and the majority of the GM corn and soy is used for feed);
• dairy products from cows injected with rbGH (a GM hormone);
• food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents, including the sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet®) and rennet used to make hard cheeses; and
• honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen.

The Health Dangers:

What are the potential dangers of eating GM foods?

There are a number of dangers that broadly fall into the categories of potential toxins, allergens, carcinogens, new diseases, antibiotic resistant diseases, and nutritional problems.

View all 65 health risks of GM foods, excerpted from Jeffrey Smith’s comprehensive book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Other References

What combinations have been tried?

It is now possible for plants to be engineered with genes taken from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Scientists have worked on some interesting combinations:

• Spider genes were inserted into goat DNA, in hopes that the goat milk would contain spider web protein for use in bulletproof vests.
• Cow genes turned pigskins into cowhides.
• Jellyfish genes lit up pigs’ noses in the dark.
• Artic fish genes gave tomatoes and strawberries tolerance to frost.
• Potatoes that glowed in the dark when they needed watering.
• Human genes were inserted into corn to produce spermicide.

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Safety/biotech/290820090926_gmos_in_foods.html

SAO PAULO (Reuters) – Brazil’s Sugarcane Technology Center and Germany’s BASF said on Tuesday they will jointly develop a genetically modified sugarcane with yields up to 25 percent higher than those currently available.

The cane, expected to hit the market within 10 years, will be able to handle drought better than current strains, said Luiz Louzano, biotechnology manager at BASF’s local unit.

“Our aim is to develop a cane which can survive in more hostile environments, areas with water limitations. Those characteristics could raise the average cane yield (in Brazil) to 100 tons per hectare, from 80 currently,” Louzano said.

This is BASF’s first step into the development of cane varieties.

The world’s largest chemical maker, which invested 1 billion euros in the past 10 years to set up a gene development program, signed a deal earlier this year with Monsanto to create the world’s first drought-resistant biotech corn.

It now expects to introduce some of these genes in conventional cane varieties developed by CTC, which was created in 2004 from Brazil’s Copersucar and has been a world leader in cane research.

“Our role is to research and validate new genes and look for partnerships with the best seed makers,” Louzano said.

The variety is expected to benefit mainly new cane frontiers such as the west of Sao Paulo, Triangulo Mineiro, in Minas Gerais state, and Brazil’s center-west states.

Cane planting has been expanding rapidly in these regions, which are usually drier and have poorer land than traditional cane-producing areas like Ribeirao Preto and Piracicaba, in the state of Sao Paulo, where yields are the world’s highest.

“It’s also a permanent goal for us to develop varieties that use less water due to its scarcity. It’s an effort in place in other parts of the world too,” Louzano said.

In Brazil, BASF signed an agreement with state-run agricultural research company Embrapa in 2007 to develop a herbicide-tolerant soy variety. The product was submitted for approval by Brazilian authorities in December 2008 and is expected to be cleared by 2011/12.

So far, no GMO cane variety has been approved in Brazil or in any other country.

The German company expects to submit the new variety for governmental approval within the next seven years.

Researchers have established the conditions that foster formation of potentially dangerous levels of a toxic substance in the high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) often fed to honey bees. Their study, which appears in the current issue of ACS’ bi-weekly Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, could also help keep the substance out of soft drinks and dozens of other human foods that contain HFCS. The substance, hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), forms mainly from heating fructose.

In the new study, Blaise LeBlanc and Gillian Eggleston and colleagues note HFCS’s ubiquitous usage as a sweetener in beverages and processed foods. Some commercial beekeepers also feed it to bees to increase reproduction and honey production. When exposed to warm temperatures, HFCS can form HMF and kill honeybees. Some researchers believe that HMF may be a factor in Colony Collapse Disorder, a mysterious disease that has killed at least one-third of the honeybee population in the United States.

The scientists measured levels of HMF in HFCS products from different manufacturers over a period of 35 days at different temperatures. As temperatures rose, levels of HMF increased steadily. Levels jumped dramatically at about 120 degrees Fahrenheit. “The data are important for commercial beekeepers, for manufacturers of HFCS, and for purposes of food storage. Because HFCS is incorporated as a sweetener in many processed foods, the data from this study are important for human health as well,” the report states. It adds that studies have linked HMF to DNA damage in humans. In addition, HMF breaks down in the body to other substances potentially more harmful than HMF.

“Formation of Hydroxymethylfurfural in Domestic High-Fructose Corn Syrup and Its Toxicity to the Honey Bee (Apis mellifera)”

SOURCE: American Chemical Society

Brazil regulator OKs Monsanto GMO cotton seed
Reuters – USA

SAO PAULO, May 21 (Reuters) – Brazil’s biosafety regulator CTNBio has approved the use of Monsanto’s (MON.N) Bollgard 2 genetically modified cotton seed, the company said on Thursday.

The pest-resistant cotton variety must still be approved by Brazil’s Agriculture Ministry before it can be planted in the country.

U.S.-based Monsanto has a total of six genetically modified varieties of cotton, soybeans and corn already approved for commercial planting in Brazil.

Bollgard 2 is a second-generation of pest-resistant cotton. It contains two different insect control genes, compared with the single insect control gene in its predecessor, Bollgard, which was approved in Brazil in 2005.

Other genetically modified cotton seeds developed by Bayer (BAYG.DE) and Dow Chemical (DOW.N) already have been approved for use in the South American country, a top producer of sugar, soy, coffee and oranges.

A seed of doubt
Honolulu Weekly – April 8, 2009

In the past two decades, the Islands have hosted some 2,252 outdoor tests for experimental GE plants, more than any other place. Open-air field trials have been conducted on corn, soybeans, cotton, potatoes, wheat, alfalfa, beets, rice, safflower, sorghum, sunflowers, sugar cane, pineapple, dendrobium orchids, anthurium, coffee and papaya, among others. About 130 now are under way throughout the state. Some of Hawaii’s outdoor tests—by companies such as Monsanto, ProdiGene, Garst Seed Co. and Hawaii Agriculture Research Center (HARC)—also involved biopharmaceuticals, which refers to plants genetically-engineered to produce medical supplies, drugs, vaccines and industrial chemicals. According to court documents, these trials involved experimental AIDS and hepatitis B vaccines; growth hormones; enzyme production from human genes; and aprotinin, a blood-clotting cow protein that is also an insect toxin. Information about where these tests were done remains blocked by a court order.