Aftermath News

GMO crop contamination of the general environment, agricultural areas and food supplies is one of the biggest crimes being committed in the world by Big Agribiz like Monsanto and BASF, yet the media largely ignores it. GMO’s constitute one of the worst potential hazards to both health and the environment, while people have been brainwashed into believing that natural warming of the earth is the biggest problem and so most of their attention is placed on that hoax instead of the real issues. I’ll say no more.

PW

EUbusiness | Jul 16, 2007

Friends of the Earth Europe has welcomed EU member states’ rejection of the latest application to grow GMOs in Europe, as the EU Agriculture Council today failed to approve the commercial growing of a genetically modified potato. There have now been no new GMOs grown in the EU for ten years.

Helen Holder, GMO Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said: “Too few EU member states support growing genetically modified crops, and now yet another has been refused authorisation. National governments recognised the safety risks of growing this GM potato, as they have with previous applications. Now the decision is in the hands of the European Commission and we urge it to reject it too.”

Today’s vote was on an application to grow the genetically modified potato for use in industrial processes like making paper. The producer - German chemicals giant BASF - has also applied for approval to use the same potato in food and animal feed and acknowledges that contamination of the food chain is possible.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave the GM potato the green light, but has been criticized for overlooking several important health and environmental risks:

* Antibiotic resistance marker gene: the potato contains a gene which can convey resistance to antibiotics. Under EU law, genes of this kind should have been phased out by the end of 2004. EFSA acknowledges that the cultivation of this potato could lead to antibiotic resistance, yet argued that this did not pose a “relevant” risk to human health or to the environment.

* The risk assessment, required under EU law, fails to fulfil legal requirements. Basic information on the health and environmental safety of the GM potato is missing; in particular there is only an analysis of effects of surrounding wildlife on the potato, rather than looking at the impact of the GM potato on the environment.

* Effects on health have not been sufficiently investigated. A number of irregularities, ncluding toxicological differences that could have serious implications for food safety, have imply not been probed either by BASF or by EFSA

* BASF admits that food contamination is likely: the potato has been genetically modified by he chemical giant BASF to increase its amylopectin content, which is used to produce starch. lthough it is not intended to enter the food chain, BASF have issued a separate application or use in human food and animal feed, stating that “it cannot be excluded that amylopectin otato.. may be used as or may be present in food”.

* The risk of contaminating future crops is ignored. As they grow underground, it is virtually impossible to harvest all potatoes from a crop. Potatoes therefore grow back the following years and future crops could be contaminated with the genetically modified variant.

“No new GMOs have been grown in the European Union for 10 years now and research show that GMOs actually stimulate the economy less than green farming measures. It is time to accept that there is simply no market for genetically modified crops.”

“The big GMO companies claim that using genetically modified potatoes in industrial processes is an environmentally-friendly option, but this is absurd considering the associated health and environmental risks,” Ms Holder added.

Islands at Risk (Part 1) - Genetic Engineering in Hawai’i

Clip from a new DVD about genetic engineering in Hawai’i and how local farmers and consumers are fighting to protect their food supply. See parts 1-3 and learn more here:

http://www.earthjustice.org/our_work/campaigns/biopharm_watch.html

To purchase the DVD:

http://www.namaka.com/catalog/environment/genetic.html

Organic Market | Jun 28, 2007

After the Green Party’s historic agreement to form a coalition government with Fianna Fail, the parties revealed their agreed policy “to negotiate for the whole island of Ireland to become a GMO-free zone”. The Green Party, working on both sides of the border, will get two Cabinet Minister positions in the new government. Green Party leader Trevor Sargent, TD, confirmed he would work very hard within the new government to get Green Party policies implemented. He added that the establishment of a GMO-free zone in Ireland was a project that he would enthusiastically work on since there was not much time left to rescue that status, but it was vital as a food-producing island operating in markets looking for GM-free food and if that status was lost, there would be no turning back.

The GM-free Ireland Network had brought main farmer organisations together with Brazil’s largest exporter of certified non-GMO soy beans for discussion to phase out the use of GM animal feed in Irish farming. Representatives of the Irish Farmers Association, the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association, the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association as well as of the Northern Ireland branch of the UK National Beef Association were present.

A GM-free Ireland Network spokesman congratulated the new government and invited Trevor Sargent to address a briefing on Food Safety and GMO at the European Parliament Office in Dublin.

Related

http://www.gmfreeireland.org

Scotsman.com | Jun 28, 2007

by SYBILLE DE LA HAMAIDE

EUROPE will increase its genetically modified (GMO) crop area by 50,000-100,000 hectares a year over the next decade, US biotech giant Monsanto has said.

“It will be slow but within ten years GMOs will have reached the point of no return,” said Jean-Michel Duhamel, Monsanto’s director for southern Europe.

“The technology will not impose itself on consumers but consumers will better understand the usefulness of GMO technology as farmers increasingly adopt it,” he added.

In France, the world’s largest seed maker, GMO maize - the only biotech crop allowed in the country - was expected to be grown on 600,000 hectares in ten years, against 25,000 in 2007, despite fierce opposition to GMOs in the country.

“It is more complicated in France than elsewhere but if we reach a 50 per cent rise (in area) per year it wouldn’t be bad, as at world level we expect it to rise 20 per cent,” Duhamel said.

French consumers are well known for their scepticism, if not hostility, to GMO crops. “Within the next few years there will likely be some turbulence,” Duhamel said. “Consumers receive false information on what GMO crops are so they are afraid. But I’m sure that within ten years they will have accepted them.”

This year, French farmers have sown 25,000 hectares of special maize, which has been modified to resist insect pests.

RELATED

Genetically Modified Food - Panacea or poison

The Future of Food: The disturbing truth behind genetically engineered foods (Part 1 of 7)

The Future of Food

THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.

THE FUTURE OF FOOD - Part 1

THE FUTURE OF FOOD: Part 1-7
http://gmo.worldwidewarning.net/www/archives/75

InfoShop | Jun 14 2007

Another genetically-modified (GM) corn variety, approved for food, feed, processing, and propagation in the Philippines has been shown by studies to be potentially toxic to humans. The new research, carried out by a French scientific research institute(1), involves biotech firm Monsanto’s NK603 GMO corn (marketed commercially under the name Round-up Ready) which was approved as food and feed in the country in 2003, and for propagation in 2005.

The scientific study released this week highlights 60 significant differences between laboratory rats fed with the GMO corn NK603 and those fed with normal corn for 90 days. The first group showed differences in their kidney, brain, heart and liver measurements, as well as significant weight differences which may be potential warning signs of toxicity.

“This new study on the GMO corn NK603 shows that the scientific evidence on dangerous GMO health risks is piling up. It also shows that the current system that evaluates the safety of GMOs cannot be trusted. Greenpeace is demanding that the Department of Agriculture (DA) immediately withdraw this and other GMOs from the market and revoke their approval, as well as enact a moratorium on all other GMO approvals,” said Greenpeace Southeast Asia Genetic Engineering Campaigner Daniel Ocampo.

Last March, a similar study concluded that another Monsanto GMO corn, MON863, also approved as food in the Philippines, was also potentially harmful to humans. Greenpeace says that this latest study has now cast further doubt over the approval process of GMOs, and is demanding an immediate market withdrawal and a moratorium on GMO approvals.

The DA has been under heavy criticism from Greenpeace over its decision to retain the approval of the said GMO corn MON863, which was proven to have adverse effects on the liver and kidneys of mammals. Although the government agency has publicly committed to a reevaluation of the GMO, no disclosure has been made so far regarding developments in their assessment.

“The DA cannot continue its careless attitude toward GMOs and expose humans to unacceptable health risks which clearly they are in a position to prevent,” said Ocampo.

The corn is also under scrutiny in the EU. The scientists who conducted the study analyzed Monsanto’s own test results, which had informed the EU food safety authority’s decision to approve the corn for sale. Their report (2) suggests that a far more thorough investigation is necessary. Neither Monsanto nor the scientific committees consulted on the feeding trials disputed the differences found in the test animals compared to the control group. However, they dismissed the results as “not of biological significance”. The study questions that conclusion.

As in the EU, safety assessment of GMOs in the Philippines also rely on analysis submitted by the GMO companies themselves.

“It is alarming that a company which produces a genetically-engineered crop not only gets to design and conduct the safety tests of its own product, but also to analyze the results. The lack of any independent scrutiny of test data suggests that risk assessment procedures overlook the threats and do not assess risks at all, just rubberstamping company dossiers,” said Ocampo.

Greenpeace campaigns for GE-free crop and food production grounded on the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity, and providing all people access to safe and nutritious food. Genetic-engineering is an unnecessary and unwanted technology that contaminates the environment, threatens biodiversity, and poses unacceptable risks to health.

Food-USA | Jun 14, 2007

Under the new regulation, organic food can still be labelled as such if it contains up to 0.9 per cent GMOs, the presence of which is “adventitious or technically unavoidable”.

By Jess Halliday

Environmental groups have hit out at the new organic regulation on which EU agriculture ministers reached political agreement this week, claiming it opens the door for GMOs in organic foods.

The new organic regulation and labelling, which will come into force in January 2009, is intended to simplify the sector for farmers and consumers and is expected to help drive further development, according to the European Commission.

However the cultivation of genetically modified crops in Europe is at loggerheads with the organic ethos, and organic advocates are highly sensitive to the possibility of GM contamination.

Under the new regulation, organic food can still be labelled as such if it contains up to 0.9 per cent GMOs, the presence of which is “adventitious or technically unavoidable”.

In April the European Parliament voted to set the threshold for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in organic food at the lowest level possible. This was interpreted by The Soil Association as being 0.1 per cent.

Throughout the legislative process critics of gene technology, including Greece, Italy and Austria, have been vehement in their opposition to the 0.9 per cent threshold; whereas in the UK the government’s support for this limit elicited criticism from The Soil Association and the Food and Drink Federation.

EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said last year that a GMO threshold of less than 0.9 per cent would increase costs in organic agriculture.

According to Helen Holder, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, the new regulation means there is a need for cross-border legislation to protect organic and conventional farmers from “genetic pollution”.

“Now that the EU has declared traces of genetic contamination in organic crops acceptable, organic farmers will find it increasingly difficult to keep their crops GM-free,” she said.

Marco Contiero, policy officer at Greenpeace EU unit, said that the new regulation opens the way for genetically modified material to start slipping into all organic food.

However architects of the new regulation say it actually closes a loophole that existed under the old 1991 regulation, whereby the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms above the 0.9 per cent did not preclude products being sold as organic.

Now, however, GMO products are still strictly banned for use in organic production, and the 0.9 per cent accidental approved GMO threshold applies also to organic food.

Contiero said that the European Commission and some member states have taken a lax attitude to contamination, disregarding the preferences of European consumers and potentially putting the whole organic sector at risk.

A report on countries’ implementation of EC guidelines on growing GM crops is currently in the works, and the need for an EU-wide law will be assessed next year. 

Reuters | Jun 7, 2007

Consumers in China’s big cities do not welcome genetically modified (GMO) food on their table, according to a Greenpeace survey, although it also showed not many were familiar with such food.

Greenpeace International has released the survey to coincide with the end of the bi-annual meeting of China’s biosafety committee, which examines the safety of genetically modified crops for large-scale production.

Among consumers surveyed in the three big cities of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, 65 percent would not choose GMO food and 77 percent would not buy GMO rice.

But only 11 percent of respondents had “more than rudimentary” knowledge of GMO food while 59 percent had only “heard of it,” the survey showed.

“Consumers’ choice is likely to determine the fate of GMO rice in the country,” said Ma Tianjie of Greenpeace China.

Beijing was unlikely to approve large-scale production of GMO rice, Greenpeace officials said, particularly after the European Union raised concerns over Chinese exports of GMO-contaminated rice products.

Members of the committee reached by Reuters declined to comment on any discussions at the meeting.

A series of unauthorized exports of genetically modified rice protein for use in animal feed, as well as GMO rice in noodles and powder sent to Europe and Japan had been found through tests, causing losses for Chinese exporters, said Ma.

Six out of 458 samples of rice powder exports to Japan since September had tested positive for unauthorized GMO rice, he said.

“This a warning for decision makers not to allow large scale planting of GMO rice,” Ma told a group of reporters.

Greenpeace two years ago said it had identified GMO rice being sold in markets in Wuhan, Hubei province. The plant was being test-grown at a university in Wuhan.

China does not allow imported GMO soybeans to be used in foods like tofu, but it does allow them to be crushed into cooking oil used by most Chinese.

Reuters | Jun 5, 2007

By Jeremy Smith

Monsanto says the protein contained in its maize has selective toxicity but is harmless to humans

An increasing number of the EU’s 27 countries are unconvinced

BRUSSELS - Several influential EU states have dug in their heels on whether their farmers may grow one of Europe’s oldest genetically modified (GMO) crops, raising the stakes in the EU’s long-running stalemate over biotech policy.

The crop is a modified maize variety known as MON 810, marketed by leading U.S. biotech seeds company Monsanto.

Also known by its commercial name YieldGard, the maize type is designed to resist the European corn borer, a pest that attacks maize stalks and thrives in warmer climates in southern EU countries such as Italy and Spain.

While Monsanto says the protein contained in its maize has selective toxicity but is harmless to humans, fish and wildlife, an increasing number of the EU’s 27 countries are unconvinced.

National GMO bans are the only part of Europe’s biotech debate where EU countries can agree, since they see attempts by Brussels to order a government to lift its ban as an attack on national sovereignty. So, unusually, they tend to band together.

The European Commission has tried this on three occasions in the past two years and got a stinging rebuff on each occasion.

In the past few weeks, two EU agricultural powerhouse countries — France and Germany — entered the fray. Not only do they wield huge clout under the bloc’s weighted voting system for decision-making, they also grow vast amounts of cereals.

First, Germany’s government said maize produced from MON 810 seeds could only be sold if there was an accompanying monitoring plan to research its effects on the environment: a restriction that farmers say is tantamount to a growing ban. 

The proposed restriction, to apply from 2008, has already been notified to Commission authorities in Brussels.

Soon afterwards, French government number two Alain Juppe, in charge of his country’s environment, transport and energy policy, said in a newspaper interview that he would not exclude being “inspired” by Germany’s proposed GMO ban.

Diplomats said it was too early to know if the French and German stances would affect voting for new GMO approvals — EU countries have clashed over this for years — but warned that it might alter the balance between ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ GMO countries.

“Even a national ban would get them into hot water with the Commission, but if it’s a blanket change in position (on biotech policy) then it raises the stakes,” one said.

Austria banned MON 810 maize in June 1999, around 14 months after the EU issued its original authorization. That national ban was cited, along with several others, by Argentina, Canada and the United States in an international challenge against the European Union at the World Trade Organization a few years ago.

Hungary, one of the EU-27’s biggest grain producers, became the first eastern European country to ban GMO crops or foods when it outlawed the planting of MON 810 seeds in January 2005.

The same year, Greece and Poland used a provision in EU law that allows countries to decide whether to allow GMO seeds on national territory — although a ban must be approved by EU member states to be legal. Both countries have restrictions in place against MON 810 maize.

Bulgaria’s parliament has also indicated support for national restrictions for growing MON 810 maize. EU environment ministers have slapped down several draft orders authored by the European Commission for countries to rescind their national GMO bans. This happened last February in the case of Hungary and also in December 2006, for Austria.

“We have had two councils (EU ministerial meetings) that have rejected Commission proposals (to lift GMO bans) with a large majority, and now there is this additional case in Germany,” a Commission official told Reuters. “We have to look at the whole (GMO) authorization policy at some point.”

MSNBC | May 15, 2007

Domitila Lemus, left, and her granddaughter Ashley are shown in front of Sunnyside Union Elementary School in Strathmore, Calif. When foul clouds wafted onto the playground from the adjacent orange groves in November, two children collapsed in spasm, vomiting on the blacktop.

Regulations are ‘inadequate’ and don’t protect children, advocates say

On Grandparents Day, Domitila Lemus accompanied her 8-year-old granddaughter to school. As the girls lined up behind Sunnyside Union Elementary, a foul mist drifted onto the playground from the adjacent orange groves, witnesses say.

Lemus started coughing, and two children collapsed in spasms, vomiting on the blacktop.

She and the little girls have since recovered without apparent lasting effects.

But an Associated Press investigation has found that over the past decade, hundreds, possibly thousands, of schoolchildren in California and other agricultural states have been exposed to farm chemicals linked to sickness, brain damage and birth defects. The family of at least one California teenager suspects pesticides caused her death.

There are no federal laws specifically against spraying near schools, and advocates say California and the seven other states that have laws or policies creating buffer zones around schools to protect them from pesticides don’t do enough to enforce them.

There are no federal laws specifically against spraying near schools, and activists say California and the few other states that do have such laws don’t do enough to enforce them.

“The regulations are inadequate. In the vast majority of cases, people who didn’t follow the laws received at best a $400 fine,” said Margaret Reeves, a scientist with the Pesticide Action Network, a nonprofit organization based in San Francisco.

The pesticide industry says it is committed to safety, and regulators say they are doing their best to enforce the laws.

“Everyone wants to protect children,” said California Department of Pesticide Regulation spokesman Glenn Brank. He said his agency is doing what it can to enforce the law with a shortage of agricultural inspectors.

In the Strathmore incident last November, grandparents said the spraying was being done less than 150 feet from the children. Tulare County authorities fined an unlicensed pest removal company $1,100 for spraying a restricted weed killer that morning. But no action was taken over what witnesses said happened to the children.

Because no one reported the incident as a case of pesticide drift, county agricultural inspectors never swabbed the jungle gym or took grass samples, making it impossible to establish whether pesticide had, in fact, drifted onto the playground.

The Environmental Protection Agency does not keep comprehensive national figures on students and teachers sickened by drifting pesticide.

In California, the No. 1 farm states and the one with the best records, there were 590 pesticide-related illnesses at schools from 1996 to 2005, according to figures given to the AP by the state. More than a third of those were due to pesticide drift, the figures show. Activists say that those numbers are low and that many cases are never even reported.