Tag Archive | "Wheat"

Tags: , , , ,

It’s on! Farmers begin suing Monsanto over genetic pollution of wheat crops

Posted on 05 June 2013 by admin

(NaturalNews) The next wave of farmer backlash against Monsanto has just been unleashed by Ernest Barnes, a wheat farmer in Morton County, Kansas. He filed suit this week in the U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas, alleging that Monsanto’s genetic pollution has financially damaged himself and other farmers.

Barnes’ case appears to be well supported by the facts: Last week the USDA announced the shock discovery that genetically engineered wheat strains from Monsanto’s open-field experiments had escaped and spread into commercial wheat farms. Almost immediately, Japan and South Korea cancelled wheat purchase contracts from the United States, and more cancellations are expected to follow. The more countries reject U.S. wheat due to GMO contamination (genetic pollution), the lower wheat prices will plunge and the more economic damage will be felt by U.S. farmers.

Monsanto now a confirmed genetic polluter

GMO wheat (i.e. “GE wheat”) has never been commercially grown in the United States… at least not on purpose. Experimental fields were approved by the USDA and planted across 16 U.S. states. Until now, it was not known that these GE wheat experiments escaped their designated field plots and began to spread as a form of self-replicating genetic pollution.

For the record, Natural News openly warned about this possibility in a 2012 article called, “Stop Out-of-Control Science.” There, I wrote:

Humanity has reached a tipping point of developing technology so profound that it can destroy the human race; yet this rise of “science” has in no way been matched by a rise in consciousness or ethics. Today, science operates with total disregard for the future of life on Earth, and it scoffs at the idea of balancing scientific “progress” with caution, ethics or reasonable safeguards. Unbridled experiments like GMOs have unleashed self-replicating genetic pollution that now threatens the integrity of food crops around the world, potentially threatening the global food supply.

Those words, it turns out, were prophetic. We are now faced with precisely this situation in the U.S. agricultural sector, and farmers are starting to feel the economic losses. GMOs are just one of several areas where so-called “science” actually threatens humanity with total destruction.

See my infographic of all 12 dangerous sectors of science with this infographic:
http://www.naturalnews.com/Infographic-SOS-Stop-Out-of-Control-Scienc…

Monsanto engaged in genetic contamination

As Yahoo News reports:

The petition filed by Barnes claims Monsanto knew there was a high risk the genetically modified wheat it was testing could contaminate other varieties of wheat, and the company failed to follow proper procedures to keep the wheat contained.

Monsanto tested the wheat in many states, including Kansas, the top U.S. wheat-producing state, but did not disclose to farmers in those states that it was testing the controversial wheat there, the petition states.

Monsanto to sue the farmers?

Monsanto claims it will mount a “vigorous defense” against the lawsuit, expressing that it takes no responsibility whatsoever for all the genetic pollution it spews across America’s farm lands. If Monsanto’s genetically modified, toxin-producing crops just happen to infect your commercial crops, then that’s your fault!

In fact, I’m surprised Monsanto hasn’t announced plans to sue all these farmers for “stealing” its “intellectual property.” That’s what the company has done before, of course: sued farmers whose fields were contaminated by Monsanto’s genetic pollutants.

Is this not the height of corporate evil? When British Petroleum spills billions of gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, it at least pretends to be sorry about it. But when Monsanto spews its genetic pollution all over the planet, it blames the farmers! It would be like if BP drove an oil tanker right into your front yard, dumped a thousand gallons of oil on your lawn, then sued you for stealing their oil.

That’s the Monsanto model. And it’s yet another example of the total runaway criminality of this evil corporation that frankly should have its corporate charter yanked. This is one business that deserves to be permanently put out of business and never allowed to operate again. When corporations become such arrogant, destructive and threatening monsters that stomp on our farmers and spew their genetic jizz all across the planet like a bunch of sicko ag perverts, something has gone terribly wrong and needs to be stopped.

The recent March Against Monsanto was only the beginning. I even foresee a day when millions of citizens from around the world engage in a far more aggressive march on the Monsanto headquarters and literally tear the place apart brick by brick until this corporate demon is permanently excised from our planet.

We are winning the war against Monsanto

I also predict — but do not condone this violence — that if Monsanto continues to engage in its crimes against farmers, nature and humanity, we are going to start seeing well-planned “acts of justice” against Monsanto executives, employees and scientists. I literally had a bizarre, disturbing dream the other night where a band of activists had kidnapped a Monsanto executive, tied him to a chair, and forced him to admit to all the crimes Monsanto has committed while being filmed on camera. The videos were then released on the internet. I realize this sounds a lot like the plot of a major motion picture, but I believe this could become reality if Monsanto continues on its current path.

Again, for the record, I do not condone the kidnapping of Monsanto executives. Kidnappings and executions are no way to resolve problems in a civilized society. If such an act actually takes place, it would actually hurt the anti-GMO movement and allow the government to paint all GMO protesters as “potential terrorists.” So if anyone out there is actually thinking of doing this, please redirect your energy and focus into non-violent protests and other similar actions that are already making tremendous progress. As I said recently on Natural News,I believe we have reached a tipping point of success against Monsanto. Let’s continue to pressure Monsanto in a grassroots, non-violent way, okay?

After all, we are winning this war against Monsanto and GMOs. They are in full retreat and completely surrounded… by the truth.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040625_lawsuit_Monsanto_genetic_pollution.html

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Global scientists decry human trials of GMO Wheat

Posted on 16 July 2011 by admin

By Belinda Tasker
Sydney Morning Herald

A group of prominent scientists and researchers from around the world has urged Australia not to go ahead with human trials of genetically modified (GM) wheat.

The CSIRO is carrying out a study of feeding GM wheat grown in the ACT to rats and pigs and could extend the trial to humans.

The modified wheat has been altered to lower its glycaemic index in an attempt to see if the grain could have health benefits such as improving blood glucose control and lowering cholesterol levels.

But eight scientists and academics from Britain, the US, India, Argentina and Australia believe not enough studies have been done on the effects of GM wheat on animals to warrant human trials.

The CSIRO has dismissed their concerns, insisting no decision has been made on if or when human trials will begin.

In a letter to the CSIRO’s chief executive Megan Clark, the scientists expressed their “unequivocal denunciation” of the experiments.

“The use of human subjects for these GM feeding experiments is completely unacceptable,” the letter said.

“The experiments may be used to dispense with concerns about the health impacts of consuming GM plants, but will not in fact address the health risks GM plants raise.

“The feeding trials should not be conducted until long-term impact assessments have been undertaken and appropriate information released to enable the scientific community to determine the value of such research, as against the risks.”

Among the signatories were Dr Michael Antoniou, of the gene expression and therapy group at King’s College London School of Medicine, and Professor David Schubert, from the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California.

The scientists said they were concerned that the CSIRO had inadequately described the biological and biochemical make-up of the GM wheat being used in the trials.

They said that, based on previous research, GM food products had been shown to be prone to having multiple effects, including damaging the health of animals which had eaten them.

They believed the CSRIO’s animal feeding trials of up to 28 days were “completely inadequate” to assess such risks.

But CSIRO spokesman Huw Morgan said animal trials of the GM wheat, which began in 2005, were still continuing.

“No decision has been made as yet to undertake human trials,” he told AAP.

“It’s still something that we are considering.”

Mr Morgan said many studies carried out in the past 15 years had shown GM foods had no detrimental impact on human health.

The CSIRO’s trials were trying to determine whether the new type of GM grain had health benefits for people with conditions such as colourectal cancer and diabetes, he said.

Greenpeace food campaigner Laura Kelly said GM experts recommended that long-term animal feeding studies of two years should be carried out before human testing to evaluate any carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural and reproductive dysfunctions.

“This is the first generation of Australian children that will be exposed to GM in food for a lifetime,” she said.

“If Julia Gillard doesn’t stand up to foreign biotech companies, soon they’ll be eating it in their sandwiches and pasta, even though it has never been proven safe to eat.”

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Greenpeace Destroys GMO Wheat trial in Australia

Posted on 14 July 2011 by admin

Greenpeace’s own photo of their criminal activity in destroying the wheat trial in ACT, Australia

 

Greenpeace recently enlisted Vandana Shiva to protest on their behalf about GM wheat trialsunderway in Australia. Vandana Shiva endorses criminal arson as direct actionagainst scientific laboratories she disproves (explicit video interview).

Now Greenpeace — by their own self-acknowledged vandalism — are following Vandana Shiva (Sydney Peace [sic] Prize recipient)  into the cesspool of criminality.

.

Greenpeace destroys GM wheat
Jessica Nairn, ABC Radio 666 Canberra
Updated July 14, 2011 11:08:36

Greenpeace protesters have broken into a CSIRO experimental farm in Canberra to destroy a crop of genetically modified wheat.

In the early hours of this morning a group of Greenpeace protesters scaled the fence of the CSIRO experimental station at Ginninderra in the capital’s north.

Greenpeace says activists were wearing Hazmat protective clothing and were equipped with weed string trimmers.

They say the entire crop of genetically modified wheat has been destroyed.

About half a hectare of GM wheat is being grown on the site, as part of Australia’s first outdoor trials.

No genetically modified wheat strain had ever been approved for cropping in Australia before.
Last month the CSIRO received permission to conduct Australia’s first trial in which humans will eat GM wheat.

The wheat’s genes have been modified to lower the glycemic index and increase fibre to create a product which will improve bowel health and increase nutritional value.

Animal feeding trials of up to three months have been conducted, with human trials at least six months away.

Greenpeace says it has taken action because of concerns over health, cross-contamination and the secrecy surrounding the experiments.

Campaigner Laura Kelly says the Federal Government needs to put an end to testing GM wheat in Australia.

She says parts of the United States and many countries throughout Europe have already rejected the crop, and Australia should do the same.

“No one is looking after the health of Australians. Julia Gillard isn’t standing up to foreign GM countries to protect our daily bread so Greenpeace has to,” she said.

ACT Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury used to work for Greenpeace and says he is not surprised the group has taken such action.

“It’s always very controversial these sorts of actions, but you have to stand up for what you believe in sometimes,” he said.

“Greenpeace has clearly formed a view that the best way to both draw attention to this issue and to potentially protect the human food chain in Australia is to take this action.”

Mr Rattenbury says Greenpeace has a track record of breaking the law to highlight problems.
“I’ve certainly been involved in action in the past where Greenpeace has broken the law and that has been necessary to highlight what we’ve considered at the time to be a greater issue than perhaps a simple trespass,” he said.

ACT police have confirmed they are investigating but have not released any further information.

GM crop destroyed
BY STAFF REPORTERS (Canberra Times)
14 Jul, 2011 09:08 AM

…ABC radio reported that the four protesters scaled the fence at the secure facility in Ginninderra wearing full-body Hazmat protective clothing.

Greenpeace have confirmed at least two women scaled the fence, including one mother, Heather McCabe*, who is concerned about her family’s health.

“This GM wheat should never have left the lab,” said Ms McCabe.

“I’m sick of being treated like a dumb Mum* who doesn’t understand the science. As far as I’m concerned, my family’s health is too important. GM wheat is not safe, and if the Government can’t protect the safety of my family, then I will.”

Canberra Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury [Pundit note:former Greenpeacer staffer] this morning condoned the action on ABC Radio, citing Greenpeace’s long-held opposition to GM crops, and saying that sometimes the end justified the means.

The site was being used to grow some of the first outdoor GM wheat crops in Australia, and trials were due to begin on human consumption of the modified wheat.

“We had no choice but to take action to bring an end to this experiment,” said Greenpeace Food campaigner Laura Kelly in a release this morning.

“This is about the protection of our health, the protection of our environment and the protection of our daily bread.

“It is time Julia Gillard stood up to global biotech companies and protected Australia’s daily bread. With public health and our largest food export under threat, this is too big an issue for the Prime Minister to continue to ignore.”

Police are investigating the incident.

There is a  Heather McCabe on the Greenpeace pay-roll according to linked-in. The dumb Mum treatment thus may be related to her place of employment.
Updates:
Robust reader comment thread

BY EWA KRETOWICZ, CITY REPORTER, Canberra Times
15 Jul, 2011 06:57 AM
Scientists have lost a year of work and up to $300,000 after Greenpeace activists destroyed a crop of genetically modified wheat at Ginninderra.
The CSIRO has labelled the act a media stunt and will review its security procedures….
The GM trials were conducted under licences from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator which imposes strict containment conditions.
CSIRO Plant Industry chief Jeremy Burdon said the wheat was modified to increase yield and improve nutritional value. He denied the government-funded science body had links to multinational biotechnology company Monsanto.
”I don’t see the grounds under which anyone should be concerned about the level of integrity the CSIRO [employs in its] experimental work,” Dr Burdon said.
He said the GM crops were safe.
”Gene silencing basically allows you to turn off genes and manipulate existing genes within a plant. It’s not like some GM products where you bring in a gene from a totally different species. In this case, you are simply taking the existing genes that are there and turning them on or off.”…
From: “Australian Academy of Science”
Subject: Media Release – GM Crop destruction unacceptable: Academy of Science
(14 July 2011)
GM Crop destruction unacceptable: Australian Academy of Science
The Australian Academy of Science today condemned last night’s destruction of a scientific trial of genetically modified crops at CSIRO in Canberra by Greenpeace activists.
“The Academy condemns this behaviour in the strongest possible terms,” said Academy President Professor Suzanne Cory.
“This kind of mindless vandalism against science is completely unacceptable.”
Professor Cory said scientists must be free to conduct their work without fear or favour.
“The trials are being conducted under licences from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator [official Australian Government gene technology regulatory agency] which impose strict containment conditions,” Professor Cory said.
“These conditions have been deliberately breached by Greenpeace.
“For an organisation that claims to be dedicated to the protection of the environment, this is an unconscionable act.”
Australian Farmers React:
Thursday 14 July 2011

Press release Grain Producers of Australia

GRAIN PRODUCERS SLAM GREENPEACE STUNT

Australian Grain Producers have today called for Greenpeace to be reprimanded and appropriate

action taken, following the destruction of CSIRO wheat field trials in Canberra.

“The destruction of world class science is absolutely despicable.  Attacking the research that supports Australian farmers is the same as attacking Australian farmers and generally we are sick of it. It is irresponsible, unethical and in this case illegal” said Mr Peter Mailler, Chairman, Grain Producers Australia.

Mr Mailler said .”CSIRO is an iconic organisation, responsible for many of the agricultural advancements that enable Australian farmers to produce the cleanest, safest and healthiest food and fibre that feeds and clothes hundreds of millions of people across the globe every year ”

“GM wheat is seven to ten years away, CSIRO has been responsibly conducting GM wheat field trials at this site for fourteen years. Today’s Greenpeace actions are totally unacceptable,” he said.

“Plant science and research and development are critical to the future of our industry,” said Mr Andrew Weidemann, R&D spokesperson, Grain Producers Australia.

“Australian farmers are highly innovative and have continued to adapt to changes in climate, customer requirements and the global operating environment, but we cannot achieve ongoing production without new tools and technologies,” he said.

“Gene technology is a proven and safe plant science. GM crops have been grown, traded and consumed around the world for fourteen years, delivering significant agronomic, environmental and sustainable outcomes,” he said.

“Today’s illegal Greenpeace activity has once and for all proven what many of us have feared for quite some time – Greenpeace is not interested in green outcomes or sustainable agriculture and food production. This is purely a non-factual, high profile fund raiser and Australian consumers need to be aware of this,” said Mr Weidemann.

Pruducers Forum Press release 14 July 2011

FARMERS CONDEMN GREENPEACE ASSAULT

Today the multi-million dollar multi-national Greenpeace continued its assault on Australian agriculture and in doing so revealed its true nature. By illegally entering the CSIRO property and deliberately destroying trial plots at the site, the Greenpeace activists and those who support them are making a mockery of Australia’s dearly held democratic rights and freedoms. “Our farmers are appalled at the unconscionable actions of the trespassers and believe that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” said Heather Baldock, National Convenor of Producers Forum.

“People have been contacting me to express their outrage and wondering what we can do about it. Civil protest is one thing. Wilful, illegal, destruction is something else entirely and must be roundly condemned,” she continued. “This is the nation’s property yet we have individuals, egged on by a multi-national NGO, willing to destroy it. It is hardly a wonder people are outraged,” Ms Baldock said.

“Australian farmers are innovators. Adopting new tools, techniques and technologies have allowed them to be among the best in the world, made possible by the support of Australian scientists and research organisations.

“The research and development (R&D) and innovation that today allows Australian farmers to produce the safe, healthy and affordable food that consumers value and expect continues to be needed to face the challenges of food production into the future. Our farmers are rightfully proud of the quality, quantity and variety of foods they produce,” Ms Baldock added.

Wayne McKay farms in the Central West of NSW. He says that the Australian grain industry strongly supports R&D in all facets of agriculture including  GM crops, and notes that the rate of production increase in Australia has declined and that Australians do not need fear mongering naysayers trying to undermine and destroy valuable R&D that supports agriculture and food production.

“Australia’s CSIRO is recognised world-wide as a first class   research organisation. The scientists working in the fields of molecular biology and gene technology operate within the processes and guidelines set down by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and our regulatory system is widely regarded as among the best in the world.

“To imply that these scientists are doing anything that would harm Australians or any other people is quite  imply and demonstrably wrong. It certainly does Greenpeace no credit,” Mr McKay said.

“Attacking our CSIRO is a bit like attacking motherhood,” he said.

Ms Baldock says that the community must question Greenpeace’s motives in attacking a technology that is good for the environment, and helps small farmers in developing nations to become more self sufficient.

COSMOS magazine are on the job.

Greenpeace targets CSIRO crops

Thursday, 14 July 2011

by Myles Gough

Cosmos Online

SYDNEY: In the early hours of July 14, Greenpeace protestors gained illegal entry into an experimental CSIRO operated farm near Canberra and destroyed a crop of genetically modified (GM) wheat….

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FDA is Considering Adding Agent Orange to Your Dinner Plate

Posted on 02 July 2011 by admin

Total Video Length: 1:12:45
Download Interview TranscriptHere, Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety since 1997, and one of the United States’ leading environmental attorneys, shares his ideas about the ideal future of food.

Visit the Mercola Video Library

Dr. Mercola’s comments:

Mr. Kimbrell is one of the United States’ leading environmental attorneys, and an author of articles and books on environment, technology and society, and food issues. He’s also the Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety, which he founded in 1997 as a way to prevent genetic engineering and sewage sludge remediation from becoming acceptable practices under the organic laws.

Organics and Beyond

But the Center for Food Safety has far grander goals than simply fighting for pro-organic laws.

“[W]e call it “Organic and Beyond,” Kimbrell says.

“We do that because we have to defend the organic standards. Over the last eight years, virtually the entire government’s all three branches, from judiciary to executive to congress, were trying to undermine the organic rule. It didn’t get as much publicity as it should have…

But we don’t want just to defend the organic rule in food. We want to evolve the ethic.

While organic is great and we need to defend that, we also want to make sure that we extend it to include for instance issues of animal welfare… We want to have bio-diverse crops… We want to make sure that our farming is local, in appropriate scale. We also want to make sure that we’re socially just. Just because we’re organic it doesn’t mean that we’re treating farm workers in a socially just manner.

Those are the beyond organic aspects of the future of food that we’re really interested in, which is a humane, local, appropriate scale, biodiverse, and socially just [system].

If we can think of the organic not as the ceiling for our food in the future but as the floor and we build this house, our future food house with those other elements… then I think we really will have done something.”

Saying “No” to Some Things is Saying “Yes” to Others

As you probably know, we are inundated with tens of thousands of chemicals these days, which have never before existed on Earth—many of which are extremely toxic. Much of the rise in chronic disease can be traced back to the excessive exposure to toxins from our food, air, water supply, and many of the personal- and household products we use on a daily basis.

What led us to this point?

In a word, technology.

For all the benefits and wonders many technologies bring, there are also some profound downsides, especially when they’re introduced without proper safety testing and forethought of the long-term consequences. Nuclear energy is just one glaring recent example. But this applies to food as well, as biotech has crept in to modify nature’s bounty in all sorts of ways, and mass-producing farms have altered the way food is grown to include massive amounts of chemicals.

“[O]rganic is really amazing because organic says: we’re looking at chemicals, and fertilizers and pesticides and we’re saying no. We’re looking at genetic engineering and we’re saying no. We’re looking at irradiated foods and we’re saying no,” Kimbrell says.

“We’re saying, progress sometimes means saying no to these technologies and saying yes to a far more natural, a far more sustainable way of doing business. It’s quite a remarkable revolution, not just because of the food, but because of the consciousness.

It’s saying progress doesn’t mean more and more exploitation and manipulation of nature through technology, it means more and more integrating the human into the entire natural context and learning to live within that context.”

“We Defend what We Love”

Kimbrell’s passion for this work stems from learning to love nature through his brother, who was an avid outdoorsman. He also worked on a farm for two and a half years before going to law school, and while he loved it, he wasn’t very good at it. The farmer he worked for suggested he go to law school instead, and “see what you can do for farms and for the whole community of life that makes for a healthy farming system.”

It turned out to be good advice. Some of his first work as an environmental attorney was in defending rivers and natural areas from exploitation, which, over time “evolved into an understanding of how technologies were hurting the natural world.”

“Those two things – my love of the natural world and my work on a farm– sort of coalesced, if you will, to create my desire to use my legal skills and whatever skills we have, to accomplish the goals that we just talked about,” Kimbrell says.

Food and the Environment

As Kimbrell states in this interview, food is the most intimate relationship you have with your environment.

“I’m always amused when people say, I’m not interested in food issues, I’m interested in environmental issues. I would say, “Whoa, let’s sit down for a second to talk about that.” There is no more intimate relationship that we have with the environment than what we eat.

To me it is a great moment for everybody out there to say, ‘I’m making a choice every day—a choice that I can control to a great extent—of what I eat, what my family eats, and to a certain extent what people around me eat.

That is to me a really important moment, because in that moment, you can reflect your views on social justice, your views on animal welfare, your views on the environment, on protecting our waters, protecting our air, protecting our soil, protecting our farm communities and protecting our community health. All of that is based in that decision that we all make several times a day.”

The Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods

From Kimbrell’s perspective, as well as my own, genetically modified (GM) food is one of the biggest threats to life and health we currently face on this planet.

“It turns out that [genetic engineering] is a lot more difficult than people thought,” Kimbrell says. “There are a couple of reasons for that. For example, folks may remember the Human Genome Project. We were supposed to have about 100,000 to 140,000 genes. We only have about 20,000 genes it turns out. That’s about as many as a worm.

A kernel of corn has, any cell on that kernel has 35,000 genes… They just did the genome of wheat and it has 80,000 genes. So wheat has four times as many genes as humans.

It turns out that the biology of these crops isn’t some simple thing but extremely complex and it turns out there is a huge amount we do not know. So this idea that you can take a little piece of DNA called a gene and switch it around between plants and animals, and human and plants, and bacteria and plants, and get predictable results turn out not to be true.”

At the present time, the most prominent genetic modification of crops is the modification to make plants immune to herbicides.

Since you can spray these crops with large amounts of chemicals without killing the crop, this, in theory, should significantly reduce weed growth. However, in the years since the introduction of “RoundUp ready” corn and soy, we’ve witnessed increasingly profound downsides to these unnatural seeds, including brand new “super weeds” that are also impervious to RoundUp (glyphosate).

According to Kimbrell, we now have 10-20 million acres of these super weeds that you can’t kill. They’re the thickness of a baseball bat, and they loom six to seven feet tall!

GM Crops Demand HIGHER Levels of Toxic Herbicides and Pesticides

Additionally, what many fail to realize is the incredible increase in toxic chemicals being used on these crops, which eventually ends up in your stomach.

“[I]n the last two years we’ve sprayed 153 million more pounds of herbicide on our crops because of the corn and soy Roundup-ready crops…” Kimbrell says.

This dilemma is leading us further and further into a quagmire of increasingly toxic remedies.

“Right now, the FDA is looking to approve crops resistant to 2,4-D, which is an element in Agent Orange,” Kimbrell says. “I kid you not, Dow Chemical is doing this. Corn and soy that has been genetically engineered so you can spray as much 2,4-D (Agent Orange) on these crops as you want and it won’t kill them.

Now that Roundup is becoming less and less useful, they’re looking for newer and more toxic herbicides that they will bathe our crops in, in order to make money…

Monsanto is now coming up with Dicamba, which is extremely dangerous. It’s a volatilizing herbicide. In other words, you spray it and under certain weather conditions it’s going to go back up from the ground, re-volatilizing to a cloud and it could go a mile or two away and come back down and it will kill everything green. It’s a very toxic herbicide.”

This poses tremendous challenges for organic farmers, threatens our environment and human health everywhere, whether you happen to live in an agricultural area, or simply eat the food produced from these now highly toxic crops.

  • Where is the breaking point?
  • When will the food produced become too toxic to eat?
  • And what do we do then?

GM Foods Line the Pockets of Chemical Companies

There can be little doubt that the technology of genetically engineered crop seeds has little to do with saving the planet, and a lot to do with promoting herbicide use and increasing herbicide sales. The major purveyors of GM crop seeds also make the chemicals and herbicides to go along with those seeds.

These companies include:

Monsanto Dow Dupont
Syngenta Bayer BASF

“These are herbicide companies that have invented a way to sell a lot more of their chemicals,” Kimbrell says.

In the end, we may be over-run with superweeds that cannot be killed even by dousing it with Agent Orange, and GM crops that contaminate all its conventional and organic counterparts. That will be their legacy to our children and grandchildren…

Only Sustainable, Smaller-Scale Farming Can Successfully Feed the Planet

“I think one of the great things about the Organic and Beyond movement is that we are trying to go back and learn,” Kimbrell says. “We can use some modern technologies that help us better understand agronomy, but basically go back into a sustainable, smaller, more localized farming system.

What makes this so great is that two studies just came out of the UN, and it turns out that the way to feed the world is through small and medium sized organic and sustainable farms because they are creating a lot more food!

Right now, we have so many acres devoted to corn but you cannot live on corn alone. As a matter of fact you shouldn’t be living on much corn at all really. That’s not really food. That’s a crop. It’s a crop that’s used to feed animals, for biofuels and for fructose corn syrup and other additives.

Small medium sized farms have numerous diverse crops and animals. It’s a far more sustainable way to not produce massive crops but actual food.”

Change is an Uphill Battle that Oftentimes Requires Litigation

Unfortunately, despite the evidence showing that our current agricultural system is unsustainable, if not downright dangerous, change is hard to come by. The agricultural committees are primarily run by the agribusiness industry, which will always vote to protect their own best interests.

One effective way to slow down the madness, as it were, is through litigation. According to Kimbrell, litigation has halted the introduction of a number of genetically engineered crops, such as GM:

  • Wheat
  • Rice
  • Bentgrass

Market campaigns also successfully thwarted the introduction of GM tomatoes and potatoes.

“We can vote with our dollar in the marketplace by buying organic, by buying non-GMO,” Kimbrell says. “But we can also then make sure that we use the courts as best we can to halt some of these damaging technologies while we promote this Organic and Beyond vision. And everyone can get involved.”

Current Campaigns to Eliminate GMOs

The Center for Food Safety, along with a number of other organic businesses, organic organizations, and non-governmental organizations, are now starting a campaign to demand labeling of all GM foods.  This is the most sensible strategy as over 90 percent of the public do not want GM foods and if they had a choice they would avoid Them. We don’t need legislation to outlaw GM, we just need an informed public to make the right choice.

Genetically engineered foods are required to be labeled in the 15 European Union nations, Russia, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries around the world, but not the US or Canada…

“You’re looking at a food that offers you risk and no benefits. It is true because the companies and the government have never looked at it. We don’t know the exact extent of that risk but we know the risk is there.

What rationale person would ever pick a food if it was labeled? … The GMO offers me no additional benefits, and only additional health risks. What would you choose?

No one is going to choose the GMO version. That’s why they don’t want labeling.”

Another very important aspect of labeling is traceability of health effects. This can literally become a life and death issue. This is yet another reason why the industry is fighting tooth and nail to avoid labeling, because they know that without labeling it’s virtually impossible to trace any health effects that may be associated with the GM ingredients. This releases them from liability.

During the Presidential campaign of 2008, Obama put in writing a promise to support mandatory labeling on GMOs.

It’s time to hold him to that promise!

I urge you to sign the petition for mandatory labeling, and to share it with everyone you know!

Also, if you don’t already have a copy of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, please print one out and refer to it often. It can help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Also remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. Many health food stores will carry these products.

You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

OCA’s Resource Center on Genetically Modified Wheat

Posted on 16 October 2010 by admin

Genetically Modified Wheat is a Threat to Farmers

  • Stop GM WheatWe are seeing massive problems with the genetic contamination from neighboring farms with GM corn, soybeans and canola. Most of the soybean supply in the U.S. is already contaminated with genetically modified seeds. Many organic and conventional corn farmers are losing markets because their crops are testing positive for GM traits. Many experts have said that it is next to impossible to find non-GM canola in Canada because of this genetic trespass. Wheat pollen is even more pervasive than that of canola.
  • All these new GM crops are patented, which prohibits farmers from planting the seeds in subsequent years. This means that they must purchase the patented seed every year from the seed company. Monsanto sells 90% of all GM seeds in use today. This corporation is currently taking legal action against hundreds of farmers for saving seed, but many of these farmers have not planted Monsanto’s seed; their crops have GM traits only because of contamination from GM pollen. Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian canola grower, was sued by Monsanto and lost his case over this very same issue. His case is currently under appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Genetically Modified Wheat is a Threat to the Economy

  • GM wheat is a mortal threat to the U.S. wheat market. It is estimated that the loss of markets for GM corn, soy and canola has reached over 300 million dollars per year because the European Union will not purchase GM crops. The U.S. is the world’s leading wheat exporter. Many foreign companies have stated that they will not purchase GM wheat or any wheat if GM wheat is grown in the region. Korea is the fifth largest purchaser of U.S. wheat exports. The Korean Flour Mills Industrial Association has stated that they want GM-free certification of any hard red spring wheat they purchase. The price of spring wheat could drop by one-third if a GM variety is introduced commercially into Montana or North Dakota, according to agricultural economist Dr. Robert Wisner of Iowa State University. This will spell doom for North American wheat growers even if they decide to not plant GM wheat themselves.
  • GM crops are not required to go through any type of independent safety peer review to determine if they are safe for either human consumption or the environment.
We must oppose this theft of a great common resource and protect the sovereignty of independent farmers and our right to safe food.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/wheat.cfm

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FLUORIDE IN FOOD

Posted on 10 August 2010 by admin

FLUORIDE IN FOOD
©1996 – 2009 PFPC
see also:
Part II
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

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Supreme Court Hears Case on GM Alfalfa Ban

Posted on 27 April 2010 by admin

The U.S Supreme Court yesterday questioned the authority of a lower court to ban “roundup ready alfalfa” (RRA), in the high-profile case of Monsanto Co. v. Geertson SeedFarms. Roundup Ready alfalfa seed is genetically modified to resist the herbicide called Roundup. The case is more about the legality of the ban than the safety of RRA plants and is being closely watched by all sectors of food and agri-business, and by environmental organizations.

In 2005 the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) approved the planting of RRA. In 2007 the Center for Food Safety took the issue to U.S. District Court in San Francisco which banned the alfalfa until a comprehensive EIS (Environmental Impact Study), required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), could be carried out.

Monsanto Co. and petitioner Forage Genetics Inc. (FGI) made claim in Supreme Court that the district court’s ban was unlawful because the court did not seek to determine evidence of future harm due to RRA, implying that a NEPA violation alone is grounds for a ban. Monsanto argued that the injunction caused undue financial harm to farmers, and in courtdocuments the petition argued that the actual risk of cross-pollination from GE alfalfa is “exceedingly small.”

Organic food producers and environmental groups say that RRA will cause widespread environmental and economic damage. Alfalfa is pollinated by bees and other flying insects and it is only a matter of time before cross-pollination occurs. Food with GE genes cannot be considered organic and cross-pollination with modified alfalfa would cause great damage to the organic food market, according to the groups.

The Center for Food Safety cited seven briefs submitted in support of Geertson, by over two dozen natural food companies and producers, as well as by the Natural ResourcesDefense Counsel, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Humane Society.

Monsanto said 18 entities submitted briefs to support its position that RRA should not be banned. They are the American Farm Bureau Federation, Biotechnology Industry Organization, American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, National Alfalfa and Forage Alliance, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cotton Council and National Potato Council, Sugarbeet Growers Association, U.S. Beet Sugar Association and National Corn Growers Association, The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Home Builders, and CropLife America, The Washington Legal Foundation, Allied EducationFoundation, and Pacific Legal Foundation, according to a Monsanto news release.

The case may become a moot point if the USDA passes regulation, now under consideration, that would require all bio-engineered plants undergo a thorough environmental impact statement.

The Supreme Court is expected to announce a decision before late June.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , ,

Stricter testing of wheat will find GMOs – Wheat Board

Posted on 19 April 2010 by admin

* GMOs in wheat would damage export reputation
 * Highlights need for accepting low GMO levels-CWB
 By Rod Nickel
 WINNIPEG, Manitoba, April 19 (Reuters) - Increased testing
for genetically modified (GMO) materials in world wheat
supplies will inevitably find them, due to contamination from
other crops in the grain-handling system, the head of the
Canadian Wheat Board said on Monday.
 The expected finding of GMO materials in wheat highlights
the need for the grain industry, governments and export markets
to agree on accepting low levels of GMO materials, said Wheat
Board chief executive officer Ian White in a presentation at
the Canada Grains Council annual meeting in Winnipeg.
 There is no commercialized production of GMO wheat in the
world, unlike other crops such as canola, corn and soybeans,
due to opposition from consumers and food-industry players. GMO
wheat production may not start for another 10 years, White
said.
 "But we will certainly see GM materials through the
handling system ... For wheat, it could be a very, very major
issue going forward. It's just that at this time, in a lot of
areas, testing isn't done."
 If that testing were done now, it probably wouldn't find
GMO materials, but such findings are "inevitable," White said.
 The Wheat Board, which has a monopoly on selling Western
Canada's wheat and barley, is one of the world's largest grain
marketers.
 Most wheat importers have zero tolerance for genetically
modified materials, White said. The Wheat Board does not
support GMO wheat unless certain conditions are met, including
acceptance by key export markets.
 "To operate in a zero (tolerance) world, I think it's been
demonstrated we can't," said Richard Wansbutter, chairman of
the Canada Grains Council and vice president, commercial and
government relations, of grain handler Viterra Inc (VT.TO). "We
do need market acceptance (of GMO) in our major markets but
most critically, a low-level presence policy."
 The grain industry has asked Canada's negotiators to
include such a policy in its current free-trade talks with the
European Union, Wansbutter said.
 Tougher testing does not appear imminent because shippers
have assured buyers that wheat shipments are GMO-free, White
said. However, Japan and the EU, whose consumers are wary of
GMO foods, are the most likely to boost testing of wheat first,
he said.
 The discovery of GMO materials in Canadian flax shipments
to the EU last summer has led to a dramatic reduction in flax
trade between Canada and the EU.
 The risk of a wheat shipment testing positive for GMO is
damage to the shipper's reputation, White said.
 "It does take you a lot of time to overcome that and to get
back in that market the same way you were before is often
difficult."
 (Reporting by Rod Nickel)
Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , ,

Is that pig or mouse-pig? Genetically modified meat may be headed for the dinner plate. Continue reading on Examiner.com Is that pig or mouse-pig? Genetically modified meat may be headed for the dinner plate.

Posted on 15 March 2010 by admin

Will tasty looking meals like this soon have you wondering is that pork or pork with a bit of mouse?Will tasty looking meals like this soon have you wondering is that pork or pork with a bit of mouse?

Credits:
AP Photo/Larry Crowe

I’m the type of guy who will eat seal meat, as I did last week and thanks to my Scottish heritage, I have an adventurous palate, ready to consumer haggis or black pudding. Still, I have a tough time getting past the idea of eating “transgenic meat.”

What you say is transgenic meat? It is meat that got its start in a laboratory and has been genetically altered with the DNA or genes of another species being introduced into the new animal. Researchers at the University of Guelph have requested approval for the first transgenic animal developed in Canada, the Enviropig. I give the full story on the pig here, including comments from people concerned about this development, but here is the quick run down. The Enviropig is a Yorkshire pig with DNA from a mouse spliced into it to reduce the amount of phosphorous the pig emits in its manure. Why do that? In intensive livestock operations, or factory farms, too much phosphorous pollutes the local water supply.

Of course the researchers don’t want to just make a less polluting pig, they want you and I to eat them too. To that end the researchers have applied to Health Canada and the US Food and Drug Administration to get this meat approved for human consumption. Here is where this all gets interesting. Under Canada’s current system, there is no need to label this meat as being anything other than pork, no need to say it has mouse DNA inside it, no need to tell the person buying it that the meat is genetically modified.

The same goes for the rainbow trout unveiled last week at the University of Rhode Island. Researchers there took a chemical from Belgian blue cattle that helps them pack on extra muscle without extra feed and injected it into the fish DNA, the result a rainbow trout, the ugliest I’ve ever seen, with what boosters call six-pack abs. The goal here, more fish on your fillet with less feed in farmed rainbow trout.

Farmers may have spent thousands of years crossbreeding various types of wheat, apples, or carrots to come up with new varieties but this is something completely different. This is taking the genes of one species and injecting them into the genes of another in a laboratory.

Canadians, and Americans, already eat lots of genetically modified farm produce without knowing it. Corn, soybeans and other produce are GMO and we don’t know about it. There are no labels to tell us these products are GMO and it appears to do no harm, at least in the short term. What will happen when governments start approving genetically modified meat though? I predict something different will happen.

Either consumers will revolt and tell governments and farmers that they do not want this product on store shelves and at the butcher’s counter or they will demand to know what they are buying. In a day and age when we are told not only how much fat is in a product and what kinds of fat, don’t you think we should know if what we are buying is real pork, fish or corn or a genetically modified variation thereof.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Is that pig or mouse-pig? Genetically modified meat may be headed for the dinner plate. – Canada Canada Politics | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/canada-politics-in-canada/is-that-pig-or-mouse-pig-genetically-modified-meat-may-be-headed-for-the-dinner-plate#ixzz1avmhDpV2

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

China says has not allowed imported GMO grain seeds for planting

Posted on 02 March 2010 by admin

(Reuters) - China will accelerate development of its own genetically modified (GMO) crops, seeking to secure food security and international competitiveness, an official from the country’s Ministry of Agriculture said.

The official from the Ministry’s biosafety administration office also denied recent media reports that China had already approved imported GMO grain seeds for widespread planting. His remarks were published by state media on Wednesday.

“The Ministry of Agriculture has never approved any genetically-modified grain seeds for planting in the country, and there are no GMO grain crops being planted within the country,” said the unnamed official.

The GMO cotton, soy, maize and rapeseed approved for import into China were “restricted to use as raw materials for processing,” but not for planting, said the official.

But the official also described hopes that China will be a leading player in international competition to create and grow its own GMO crops that are resistant to pests and diseases.

“Accelerating technical research on GMO crops and their application and healthy development will provide a vigorous scientific support for the sustainable development of China’s agriculture,” said the official, in the interview that also appeared on the ministry’s website.

Developing GMO strains was important for both international competitiveness and ensuring China’s food security, said the official.

China approved the safety of the insect-resistant Bt strain of rice and phytase corn last November, opening the door to widespread planting of the GMO grain crops, within about three years. [ID:nSP364484]

A survey conducted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) showed that Bt rice could cut pesticide use by as much as 80 percent and save labour costs for farmers, boosting net income by $72 per hectare.

More than 20 GMO crops have been approved for field trials, including wheat, soybean and rapeseed, according to the CAS report published last month.

China’s largest feed mill, the New Hope Group, said the company was supporting GMO corn, which could help China produce enough grain to meet rising demand for animal protein.

“I think GMO technology is a good thing… It can resolve the problem of grain supply for food, for animal feed and industry on limited farmland,” said its chairman, Liu Yonghao, on Tuesday.

“We have no choice, either we import large quantities of corn or grow GMO corn. I think the government will choose to grow GMO corn,” said Liu.

(Reporting by Chris Buckley and Niu Shuping; Editing by Ken Wills)

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Advertise Here
Advertise Here