Farmers and Seed Distributors Defend Right to Protect Themselves From Monsanto Patents

Press Release

New York—The eighty-three family farmers, small and family owned seed businesses, and agricultural organizations, including the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association (OEFFA), challenging Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed filed papers in federal court on Thursday, August 11 defending their right to seek legal protection from the threat of being sued by Monsanto for patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed. The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) represents the plaintiffs in the suit, titled Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association (OSGATA), et al. v. Monsanto pending in the Southern District of New York. Last week’s filings are in response to a motion filed by Monsanto in mid-July to have the case dismissed.

“On behalf of plaintiffs in Ohio and elsewhere who fear being sued for patent infringement if their fields are contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically engineered seed, our attorney gave Monsanto the opportunity to state unequivocally that they would not sue,” said Carol Goland, OEFFA’s Executive Director. “Instead, Monsanto’s response was to try to deny our right to receive legal protection from the courts.”

Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director added, “Our filings include sworn statements by several of the plaintiffs themselves explaining to the court how the risk of contamination by transgenic seed is real and why they cannot trust Monsanto to not use an occurrence of contamination as a basis to accuse them of patent infringement.”

Plaintiffs Bryce Stephens, who farms in Kansas, Frederick Kirschenmann, who farms in North Dakota, C.R. Lawn, who is founder and co-owner of Fedco Seeds in Maine, Don Patterson of Virginia, and Chuck Noble, who farms in South Dakota, each submitted declarations to the court describing their personal experiences with the risk of contamination by genetically modified seed and why those experiences have forced them to bring the current suit asking the court.

As summarized by the accompanying brief filed by PUBPAT on the plaintiffs' behalf, “Monsanto's acts of widespread patent assertion and plaintiffs' ever growing risk of contamination create a real, immediate, and substantial dispute between them.”

Twelve agricultural organizations also filed a friend-of-the-court amici brief supporting the right of the plaintiffs to bring the case. In their brief, the amici describe some of the harmful effects of genetically modified seed and how easily GMOs can contaminate an organic or conventional farmer's land.

For more information, contact:
Daniel Ravicher, PUBPAT, ravicher@pubpat.org or 212-461-1902
Carol Goland, OEFFA, cgoland@oeffa.org or 614-421-2022

GMO Video

GMO Crops Farmer to Farmer

interesting video about how GMO and conventional farmers feel about growing GMO crops. Talks about the broken promises such as single pass farming, better yields, low risk of contamination, etc..

Interesting and disturbing as it is clear many farmers do not want to grow this stuff but have been railroaded into it by Monsanto and other biotech Ag corps.

GMOs Linked to Organ Disruption in 19 Studies

Jeffrey Smith The world’s leading consumer advocate promoting healthier, non-GMO choices Posted on 10:55 am April 7, 2011

GMOs Linked to Organ Disruption in 19 Studies

A new paper shows that consuming genetically modified (GM) corn or soybeans leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys. By reviewing data from 19 animal studies, Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and others reveal that 9% of the measured parameters, including blood and urine biochemistry, organ weights, and microscopic analyses (histopathology), were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals. The kidneys of males fared the worst, with 43.5% of all the changes. The liver of females followed, with 30.8%. The report, published in Environmental Sciences Europe on March 1, 2011, confirms that “several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects.” The authors point out that livers and kidneys “are the major reactive organs” in cases of chronic food toxicity.

“Other organs may be affected too, such as the heart and spleen, or blood cells,” stated the paper. In fact some of the animals fed genetically modified organisms had altered body weights in at least one gender, which is “a very good predictor of side effects in various organs.”

The GM soybean and corn varieties used in the feeding trials “constitute 83% of the commercialized GMOs” that are currently consumed by billions of people. While the findings may have serious ramifications for the human population, the authors demonstrate how a multitude of GMO-related health problems could easily pass undetected through the superficial and largely incompetent safety assessments that are used around the world.

Feed’em longer!
One of the most glaring faults in the current regulatory regime is the short duration of animals feeding studies. The industry limits trials to 90 days at most, with some less than a month. Only two studies reviewed in this new publication were over 90 days—both were non-industry research.

Short studies could easily miss many serious effects of GMOs. It is well established that some pesticides and drugs, for example, can create effects that are passed on through generations, only showing up decades later. IN the case of the drug DES (diethylstilbestrol), “induced female genital cancers among other problems in the second generation.” The authors urge regulators to require long-term multi-generational studies, to “provide evidence of carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural, and reproductive potential dysfunctions, as it does for pesticides or drugs.”

“Pesticide Plants”
Nearly all GM crops are described as “pesticide plants.” They either tolerate doses of weed killer, such as Roundup, or produce an insecticide called Bt-toxin. In both cases, the added toxin—weedkiller or bug killer—is found inside the corn or soybeans we consume.

When regulators evaluate the toxic effects of pesticides, they typically require studies using three types of animals, with at least one feeding trial lasting 2 years or more. One third or more of the side effects produced by these toxins will show up only in the longer study—not the shorter ones. But for no good reason, regulators ignore the lessons learned from pesticides and waive the GM crops-containing-pesticides onto the market with a single species tested for just 90 days. The authors affirm that “it is impossible, within only 13 weeks, to conclude about the kind of pathology that could be induced by pesticide GMOs and whether it is a major pathology or a minor one. It is therefore necessary to prolong the tests.”

GMO approvals also ignore the new understanding that toxins don’t always follow a linear dose-response. Sometimes a smaller amount of toxins have greater impact than larger doses. Approvals also overlook the fact that mixtures can be far more dangerous than single chemicals acting alone. Roundup residues, for example, have been “shown to be toxic for human placental, embryonic, and umbilical cord cells,” whereas Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate does not on its own provoke the same degree of damage. One reason for this is that the chemicals in Roundup “stabilize glyphosate and allow its penetration into cells.”
Furthermore, toxins may generate new substances (metabolites) “either in the GM plant or in the animals fed with it.” Current assessments completely ignore the potential danger from these new components in our diets, such as the “new metabolites” in GMOs engineered to withstand Roundup. The authors warn, “We consider this as a major oversight in the present regulations.”

It’s not the same stuff that farmers spray
Regulators claim that the Bt-toxin produced inside GM corn is safe. They say that the Bt gene comes from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has been safely applied as a spray-on insecticide by farmers in the past. But the authors insist that “the argument about ‘safe use history’ of the wild Bt protein . . . cannot, on a sound scientific basis, be used for direct authorizations of . . . GM corns,” without conducting proper long-term animal feeding studies.

In order to justify their claim that the wild Bt-toxin is safe, the authors state that it must first be separately tested on animals and humans and then authorized individually for food or feed, which it has not. And even if the wild variety had been confirmed as safe, the GM versions are so different, they must require their own independent studies. The paper states:
“The Bt toxins in GMOs are new and modified, truncated, or chimerical in order to change their activities/solubility in comparison to wild Bt. For instance, there is at least a 40% difference between the toxin in Bt176 [corn] and its wild counterpart.”

Even though the isolated Bt-toxin from GM corn has not been tested on animals, rodent studies on corn containing the toxin do show problems. Male rats fed Monsanto’s MON863 corn, for example, had smaller kidneys with more focal inflammation and other “disrupted biochemical markers typical of kidney filtration or function problems.”

Stop with the dumb excuses
If statistically significant problems show up in their studies, biotech company researchers often attempt to explain away the adverse findings. But the authors of this review paper describe their excuses as unscientific, obsolete, or unjustified.

When male and female animals have different results, for example, biotech advocates claim that this couldn’t possibly be related to the feed. Since both genders eat the same amount, they argue, both would have to show the same reaction in all of their organs, etc. And if the group of animals fed with less of the GMO feed exhibit more severe reactions than the group fed the larger amount, advocates claim that this discrepancy also means that the GMOs could not be the cause, since there must always be a linear dose relationship.
The authors of this paper, however, point out that effects found in a GMO animal feeding study “cannot be disregarded on the rationale that it is not linear to the dose (or dose-related) or not comparable in genders. This would not be scientifically acceptable.” In fact, most “pathological and endocrine effects in environmental health are not directly proportional to the dose, and they have a differential threshold of sensitivity in both sexes. This is, for instance, the case with carcinogenesis and endocrine disruption.”

What’s the culprit, pesticide or plant?
The shortcomings of the feeding studies make it impossible to determine whether a particular problem is due to the added pesticide, such as Roundup residues or Bt-toxin, or due to the genetic changes in the modified plants’ DNA.

Mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans, for example, showed numerous changes indicating increased metabolic rates in the liver (i.e. irregular hepatocyte nuclei, more nuclear pores, numerous small fibrillar centers, and abundant dense fibrillar components). Since studies on Roundup herbicide also show changes in the liver cells of mice and humans, the Roundup residues within the soybeans may be a significant contributing factor to the metabolic changes.

Similarly, rats fed Roundup Ready corn showed indications that their kidneys leaked. Such an effect “is well correlated with the effects of glyphosate-based herbicides (like Roundup) observed on embryonic kidney cells.” Thus, the rats’ kidney problems may also be caused by the Roundup that is accumulated within Roundup Ready corn kernels.
In addition to the herbicide, the Bt-toxin insecticide produced inside GM corn might also cause disorders. The authors state, “The insecticide produced by MON810 [corn] could also induce liver reactions, like many other pesticides.” Studies do confirm significant liver changes in rats fed Bt corn.

On the other hand, “unintended effects of the genetic modification itself cannot be excluded” as the possible cause of these very same health problems. The process of gene insertion followed by cloning plant cells (tissue culture) can cause massive collateral damage in the plant’s DNA with potentially harmful side-effects. In MON810 corn, for example, the insertion “caused a complex recombination event, leading to the synthesis of new RNA products encoding unknown proteins.” The authors warn that “genetic modifications can induce global changes” in the DNA, RNA, proteins, and the numerous natural products (metabolites), but the faulty safety assessments are not designed to adequately identify these changes or their health impacts.

Population at risk
In addition to the shortcomings mentioned above, the paper shows how GMO feeding trials are “based on ancient paradigms” with “serious conceptual and methodological flaws,” employ statistical methods that obscure the findings, add irrelevant control groups that confuse and confound the analysis, and rely on numerous assumptions that either remain untested or have already proved false.

Unlike drug approvals, biotech companies do not conduct human studies. They would therefore fail to identify both general human health reactions, and the potentially more serious ones endured by sub-populations. “If some consumers suffer from stomach problems or ulcers,” for example, the paper states, “the new toxins will possibly act differently; the digestion in children could be affected too.” The paper recommends the implementation of post market monitoring, which, among other things, “should be linked with the possibility of detecting allergenicity reactions to GMOs in routine medicine.”

But even if authorities wanted to conduct epidemiological studies on GMOs, the authors acknowledge that they “are not feasible in America, since there is no organized traceability of GMOs anywhere on the continent.” Not only is labeling of GMOs urgently needed to allow such studies to proceed, the study says:
“The traceability of products from animals fed on GMOs is also crucial. The reason for this is because they can develop chronic diseases which are not utterly known today…. Labeling animals fed on GMOs is therefore necessary because some pesticide residues linked to GMOs could pass into the food chain.”

They also point out that “even if pesticides residues or DNA fragments are not toxic nor transmitted by themselves” nevertheless, “nobody would want to eat disabled or physiologically modified animals after long-term GMOs ingestion.”
“New experiments,” they concluded, “should be systematically performed to protect the health of billions of people that could consume directly or indirectly these transformed products.”

In the meantime, for those not willing to wait for the new studies, we recommend consulting the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
You can find the shopping guide, comments and much much more information here

Russia says GMO Harmful to Mammals

Russia says genetically modified foods are harmful

Tag cloud: food problem, Health, Russia, Commentary, World, food

16.04.2010, 17:26

Russia has started the annual Days of Defence against Environmental Hazards from the 15th of April to the 5th of June with the announcement of sensational results of an independent work of research. Scientists have proved that Genetically Modified Organisms are harmful for mammals. The researchers discovered that animals that eat GM foodstuffs lose their ability to reproduce. Campbell hamsters that have a fast reproduction rate were fed for two years with ordinary soya beans, which are widely used in agriculture and those contain different percentages of GM organisms. Another group of hamsters, the control group, was fed with pure soya, which was found with great difficulty in Serbia because 95 percent of soya in the world is transgenic.

Concerning the experiment carried out jointly by the National Association for Gene Security and the Institute of Ecological and Evolutional Problems, Dr. Alexei Surov has this to say. “We selected several groups of hamsters, kept them in pairs in cells and gave them ordinary food as always,” says Alexei Surov. “We did not add anything for one group but the other was fed with soya that contained no GM components, while the third group with some content of Genetically Modified Organisms and the fourth one with increased amount of GMO. We monitored their behavior and how they gain weight and when they give birth to their cubs. Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly. When we got some of their cubs we formed the new pairs of the third generation. We failed to get cubs from these pairs, which were fed with GM foodstuffs. It was proved that these pairs lost their ability to give birth to their cubs,” Dr. Alexei Surov said.

Another surprise was discovered by scientists in hamsters of the third generation. Hair grew in the mouth of the animals that took part in the experiment. It’s unclear why this happened. The researchers cannot understand why a programme of destruction is launched when animals take GMO foodstuffs. They say that this can be neutralized only by stopping to eat these foods. Consequently, scientists suggest imposing a ban on the use of GM foods until they are tested for their bio-security. The results of Russian scientists coincide with those of their colleagues from France and Austria. For one, when scientist proved that GM maize was harmful for mammals, France banned immediately its production and sale. The scientists who carried out the experiment say that it’s too early to make far-reaching conclusions about the health hazards of the GMO. They insist that there is a need to carry out comprehensive research. They suggest implementing the project, “Safety Gene Technology” at the innovation centre, “Skolkovo” which is being set up near Moscow.

Seed Buying

One of the big events in winter for us farmers is the seed order. Since we garden on acres this is a far larger undertaking than when we did home gardens. Ordering has happens much earlier for us growing commercially than for home gardeners. In fact we get our commercial catalogs about 3 weeks earlier than the home gardener catalogs (we know this because several of the companies we use have both). So in mid December we get our first catalogs-Johnny's and Fedco Followed by Seed Savers Exchange. A those are the 3 main companies we use for our seed supply.

There are a whole lot of companies we will not use due to the fact they source most of their seeds from companies owned by Monsanto (Peto and Semenis seeds). Jung's is one of them. Okay, another big reason we will never ever buy from Jung's Seeds ever again is they have sent us a lot of horrible plants and seeds. The rhubarb we got from there all died within 12 months, 95% died within 3 months. Than there were the trees they sent us last year that should have come in March or early April but cam in mid June and all but 1 were dead. We also do not like the policy of no refunds, store credit only. And they have bought up a lot of smaller companies (that people think are still independents) such as Totally Tomato
Vermont Bean Seed Co., Burpee, Cook's Garden, Earl May Seeds, Gardens Alive (not really a seed place they are more into fertilizers, pest control, etc.. and used to be a really good place to buy organic inputs), Lindenberg Seeds, Mountain Valley Seeds, Park Seeds, T&T Seeds, Tomato Grower's Supply, Willhite Seed Co., Nichol's, Rupp, Osborne, Snow, Stokes, R.H. Shumway, The Vermont Bean Seed Co., Seeds For The World, Seymour's Selected Seeds, HPS, Roots and Rhizomes, McClure and Zimmerman Quality Bulb Brokers, Spring Hill Nurseries, Breck's Bulbs,
Audubon Workshop, Flowers of the Month Club, Wayside Gardens, Park Bulb's and Park's Countryside Garde.

I also have quit buying seed from Baker Creek because they have send too many wrong or poorly bred seed. This is a shame because I really like Baker Creek. they are independently owned, they do not sell any GMO seed nor source with companies that do. All things that are important to me. but the seed quality for the most part sucks and in my market garden I have to have good to great seed quality and the seed should match up with what it says on the packet. I would say with Baker Creek, 3 out of 5 times there have been mistakes on their part.

Now savvier readers will note I order from Johnny's Selected Seeds and that Johnny's does indeed source some seeds from Semenis/Peto Seeds (though I hear rumors saying they have stopped or will stop buying from these corporations). The reason I make this exception for Johnny's is because I have been a happy customer for over 15 years, the seeds are top flight. There are very few mistakes made and when they happen they always make good, often within hours. they are an employee owned independent seed house with inhouse seed breeding program that is second to none. They are an official AAS trial site because of their location and great breeding program and they have one of the best seed catalogs in the world. And they have signed the Safe Seed Pledge (This link has a list of all the seed houses that have signed this pledge in 2009).

Around Christmas time we get the first catalogs (Johnny's first than Fedco a week later and finally SSE) and we start looking through them and also looking at the list of seed needs I complied last year as we used up the seeds (this is something that I had not done before 2009-or if I did I lost the list before seed ordering time. This saved a lot of time and made the order far more accurate than in the past). this year Eugene did the order and I was the one who got to put the orders on the order blanks, check to make sure we got everything (we never do and this year has been no exception. IIRC we still need a few tomato types) and than the order is calculated, checks are written and than everything is put into the correct envelopes, stamped and sent out.

This year Johnny's got $193, Fedco $207 and SSE $17.50. I know we still have to order strawberry plants which will be another $75 or so. And there will likely be other orders for seeds due to various reasons. And believe it or not this is a relatively small seed order for us. Many years we spend over $600 on seed alone (and several thousand on other inputs and equipment).

After the orders are dropped into the mail box at the Post Office we go home and sit around and await the incoming orders.

As per usual, Johnny's was the first to send us our order. About a 10 days ago the UPS guy delivered a box full of seeds and we were happy. We took the box inside and went through the seeds and found 3 kinds on back order. But within 3 days those seeds had also arrived at the post office. After the Johnny's order came the Seed Saver's order of heirloom tomatoes arrived. And yesterday we picked up the Fedco order at the post office. Or at least the majority, as many things are on back order and one thing was out of stock Even'star American Rapa which seems to be something for spring mixes so not a big deal that there is none. Besides I contacted Fedco and asked if they could send Hamburg Parsley instead of a refund and they said certainly (because they are flexible like that). one thing i am very happy about is the fact our onion seed arrived yesterday. You see CR Lawn, Fedco's founder always includes a newsletter with the order and he wrote that 6 varieties of onions have been on back order but during his writing 3 types arrived at their wearhouse and thus Fedco was able to fill some of their onion orders, including ours. This is important because onions (and leeks and shallots) really need to be started by Feb 1st for best results. It really sucks to see the term "Back Order" next to the seeds you need early as possible (and it is even worse when there is a note stating those seeds will not be available for 2 to 3 months and you already know there are none to be had anywhere because you already checked out 15 different companies for the variety-this happened to about 10 years ago mainly because we were not ordering our seed early enough, so we got smart and got into the habit of ordering early in the year).

Now that we have our seeds let the planting begin! And it will today with onions, leeks and shallots (and maybe kale and lettuces too).

Follow Up to helping the DOJ Investigate Monsanto

here is a follow up to the DOJ investigation of Monsanto. An excerpt of the several thousands of letters from people explaining just how Monsanto and the industrialization of our food system has negatively affected them. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/10/823719/-Millions-Against-Monsanto

Jeffery Smith Interviewed in Acres USA

I have a subscription to acres USA and in this month's issue is a chilling interview with Jeffery Smith, author of Seeds of Destruction. A book that takes on the lies of the biotech industry

Here I present to you in a format that allows you to read this interview in your web browser of this interview

After reading this I have decided I can no longer eat from the industrial food stream. I am lucky in that 85% to 90% of my diet is already local and organic (i.e. GMO free) so cutting out the monthly fast food trips won't be that hard to do (though eating at unenlightened friends' homes is another issue). Also I have long been a label reader and have been aware how pervasive GMO's are in the conventional industrial food stream.

But what can you do? Start by buying more of your food from local sources. Find a farmers market or if you want to do more, join a CSA. I happen to know of one near Eaton, OH that is taking members right now-Boulder Belt Farm Share Initiative-that serves members in Dayton, Oxford, Fairfield/West Chester/Northern Cincy.

Read labels and if it has corn, coy, cotton seed or canola assume it has GMO ingredients. And learn what words mean such things are in the food. For example, lecithin means there is soy, vitamin C means corn, etc., etc.. Oh and if there are partially hydrogenated oils or high fructose corn syrup (and Soda pop has both) do not eat it-this is poison they are serving us

Finally, don't be the victim-take back the responsibility from the corporations over what you put in your body. For too long we have allowed them to call the shots and they have returned the favor by serving us poisons that make us sick (but hey, that means big bucks for the drug industry), obese (big bucks for the weight loss industry) and now we are seeing that GMO's may well cause our kids to be sterile. So now is the time to stand up and just say no to GMO's

GMO Crop Implicated in Honeybee CCD

Genetically Modified Crops Implicated in Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder

Sunday, January 11, 2009 by: Patty Donovan, citizen journalist


(NaturalNews) As the disappearance of honeybees continues, researchers are trying desperately to discover the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). General concensus at this point is that there is more than once cause and the latest culprit may be genetically modified crops. This is one area of research being neglected as mainstream scientists insist GM crops are safe.

For the last 100 years, beekeepers have experienced colony losses from bacteria, (foulbrood), mites (varroa and tracheal) and other pathogens. These problems are dealt with by using antibiotics, miticides and and other methods of pest management. Losses are slow and expected and beekeepers know how to limit the destruction. This new mass die-off is different in that it is virtually instantaneous with no warning of the impending collapse.

John McDonald, a bee keeper in Pennsyvania with a background in biology, speculated that genetically modified crops could play a role in CCD. Although the government constantly reassures us that these genetic manipulations are safe for both humans and the environment, his hope is that looking more closely at these issues might raise questions about those assumptions.

The common bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) supplies the most commonly used segment of transgenic DNA. Bt has been used for decades by farmers and gardeners to control crop damage from butterfy larvae. Now, instead of spraying this bacterium directly on the crops, where it is eaten only by the target insects, the genes containing the insecticidal traits are incorporated into the genome of the plant itself. As the genetically modified plant grows, these Bt genes are replicated in every cell of the plant, including pollen. Therefore, every cell of each GM plant contains its own poison aimed to kill the target insect. The target insects consume some portion of the plant, then once ingested, the toxin produced by the Bt genes causes crystallization in the guts of boring larvae and thus death. The primary toxin is a protein called Cry1Ab. In the case of field corn, the targeted insects are stem and root-borers and butterfly larvae.

Although scientists "assure" us that bees (hymenopterans) are not affected, there are Bt variants available that target beetles, flies and mosquitoes. There is indisputable proof that Cry1Ab is present in beehives. Beekeepers spray Bt under hive lids to control the wax moth because the larvae cause messy webs on the honey. Canadian beekeepers have noted the disappearance of this moth even in untreated hives, apparently the result of bees ingesting Cry1Ab while foraging in GM canola plants.

Bees forage heavily on corn flowers to obtain pollen for the rearing of young bees. These pollen grains also contain the Bt genes of the parent plant, because they are present in the cells from which pollen forms. Mr. McDonald believes it may be possible that while Cry1Ab has no direct lethal effect on young bees, there may be some sub-lethal effect, such as immune suppression, acting as a slow killer.

Tens of millions of acres of genetically modified crops are allowing the Bt genes to move off crop fields and contaminate other flowers from which bees gather flowers. "Given that nearly every bite of food that we eat has a pollinator, the seriousness of this emerging problem could dwarf all previous food disruptions".(John McDonald) He proposed an experiment to compare colony losses of bees from regions where there are no GM crops to losses of colonies where they are exposed. He wanted to put test hives where GM crops are so distant from the hives that the foraging worker bees would have no exposure to GM crops. Researches readily dismissed his ideas and no one followed through with such an experiment.

At this point, he decided to do his own investigation at his own expense. He established 8 colonies in new wooden hives to ensure no possible disease transfer from old hives. The bees were fed continuously with sugar syrup until the hives were placed at the selected locations.

"At both sites the flowers of goldenrod provided ample pasturage, with the honey flow commencing in the middle of August and tapering off by the second week in October. Medium-depth empty honey storage supers (a super is the part of the beehive used to collect honey) were put on the hives at this time in addition to the three brood chambers already there. By the simple expedient of lifting the hives from behind, progress could be roughly monitored.

This monitoring showed that the hives of the farmland bees, while numerous, were not gaining weight. Meanwhile, the non-farm colonies steadily gained weight. This part of the experiment was terminated Oct. 14 with the removal of the honey storage supers, with these results: The farmland bees had not even started to work in the honey supers and will require extensive feeding before winter sets in. The non-farm bee colonies produced, in total, nearly 200 pounds of extra honey in addition to about 150 pounds per hive stored in the over-wintering brood supers. These colonies will be left in place to see whether the die-off of last season is repeated. These results should encourage new research to determine what factor or factors are present in farm country to cause such a discrepancy in honey production." John McDonald



John McDonald is a beekeeper in Pennsylvania. He welcomes comments or questions about the bee problem at mactheknife70@hotmail.com.

Another study indicating that Bt may be contributing to the death of honey bees was undertaken in Mexico. This study compared the effects on young adult honeybees of 2 concentrations of Cry1AB (3 and 5000 parts per billion) to a chemical pesticide, imidacloprid. 3 different effects were evaluated by the researchers:

1. Survival of honeybees during sub-chronic exposure to Cry1Ab.
2. Feeding behavior.
3. Learning performance at the time that honeybees become foragers.



Neither test concentration of Cry1Ab had lethal effects on the honeybees, however, when exposed to the higher concentration, feeding behavior was affected. The bees spent longer ingesting the syrup which contained the Cry1Ab which could mean smaller amounts of pollen would be collected. These bees also had impaired learning performance. Honeybees normally do not continue responding to an odor when no food is present, but should be discouraged and seek other sources. These bees continued responding to the odor which again, could affect pollen gathering efficiency. This study indicates that although Bt is not directly lethal to honeybees, it could indirectly lead to colony death due to failure to collect enough food to sustain the hive.

These findings may be the key to the difference in honey production in Mr. McDonald's experiment. Bt appears to have non-lethal effects which become apparent only when the lethal effect is absent. Although not directly lethal to non-target organisms, the toxins from the Bt gene potentially puts non-target insects such as honeybees at risk.

http://persianoad.wordpress.com/2008/01...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18206234

Vilsack To Head the USDA-Obama What Are You Thinking!??!

I do not do a lot of political posts even though I feel food is a very very political thing and I am fairly politically active (I write/email my reps and I vote).

So I was incredibly disappointed and even disillusioned by Barak Obama's pick of Tom Vilsick for Secy of the USDA. I know I did my best to suggest far better people to head the USDA and be leaders of real change, people such as Jim Hightower. I was encouraged several weeks ago to learn that Vilsack had been deleted from the short list (or so the Obama people told the Organic Consumers Association and the organic food and farming community. Was that his first big lie to us foodies?) The Obama people said they were intersted in appointing someone who would change the USDA and make it much more firendly to eaters and farmers and not so friendly with Big farma, corporations and biotech farming.

Well Obama, you have nominated a man who is in lock step with everything that has made our national food and farming system so unsustainable and dangerous. You have shown me that, at least as far as the very very important sector of food, (far more important to our collective well being than energy-that we can live without but we cannot go more than a few days without food before nasty riots break out and no more than a few weeks before the riots die down becuase of all the starvation that is killing off anyone who was not killed in the food riots) you will be doing business as usual which is not good for the eaters and farmers of this great nation. But this will be wonderful for Monsanto, Cargill, ADM etc..

I voted for change and so far have seen very little indication there will be any. I had faith that Obama would at least listen to his constituants but I don't think he is listening to we the people and the websites that allow us to put in our thoughts and opinions are simply ruses. Something to keep us busy and thinking we are making a difference. I hope I am wrong and this is an anomaly but it is not looking good from where I stand.

I should have voted for Nader. This appoujntment soo pisses me off

Before You Vote for Hillary Read This.

Check out this open letter to Ms Hillary Clinton and her relationship with industrial ag, Monsanto, biotech. Scary stuff. I was not intending on voting for her in either the Ohio Primary or the national election (if she is nominated) but this does it for me.

Damn I am disappointed that Kucinich is out of the race. At least he was not sullied by such corporate ties. The best we have now is Ron Paul

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton from Another Wellesley College Alumna

Dear Hillary,

By polling logic, I should be your supporter - Democrat, older woman, white, liberal. I was even in a dorm with you in college. I have pulled for you for years. But something this past summer fundamentally changed my responsibility to my children and grandchildren. In the time I have left in my life to protect them and others, I need to speak out.

I saw a News Hour piece on Maharastra, India, about farmers committing suicide. Monsanto, a US agricultural giant, hired Bollywood actors for ads telling illiterate farmers they could get rich (by their standards) from big yields with Monsanto's Bt (genetically engineered) cotton seeds. The expensive seeds needed expensive fertilizer and pesticides (Monsanto, again) and irrigation. There is no irrigation there. Crops failed. Farmers had larger debt than they'd ever experienced

And farmers couldn't collect seeds from their own fields to try again (true since time immemorial). Monsanto "patents" their DNA-altered seeds as "intellectual property." They have a $10 million budget and a staff of 75 devoted solely to prosecuting farmers. http://www.grist.org/comments/food/2008/01/17./). Since the late 1990s (about when industrial agriculture took hold in India),166,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide and 8 million have left the land.

Farmers in Europe, Asia, Africa, Indonesia,South America, Central America and here, have protested Monsanto and genetic engineering for years.

What does this have to do with you?

You have connections to Monsanto through the Rose Law Firm where you worked and through Bill who hired Monsanto people for central food-related roles. Your Orwellian-named "Rural Americans for Hillary" was planned withTroutman Sanders, Monsanto's lobbyists.

Genetic engineering and industrialized food and animal production all come together at the Rose Law Firm, which represents the world's largest GE corporation (Monsanto), GE's most controversial project (DP&L's - now Monsanto's - terminator genes), the world's largest meat producer (Tyson), the world's largest retailer and a dominant food retailer (Walmart).

The inbred-ness of Rose's legal representation of corporations which own controlling interests in other corporations there and of corporate boards sharing members who are also shareholders of each other's corporations there, is so thorough that it is hard to capture. Jon Jacoby, senior executive of the Stephens Group - one of the largest institutional shareholders of Tyson Foods, Walmart, DP&L - is also Chairman of the Board of DP&L and arranged the Wal-Mart deal. Jackson Stephens' Stephens Group staked Sam Walton and financed Tyson Foods. Monsanto bought DP&L. All represented at Rose.

You didn't just work there, you made friends. That shows in the flow of favors then and since. You were invited onto Walmart's board, you were helped by a Tyson executive to make commodity trades (3 days before Bill became governor), netting you $100,000, Jackson Stephens strongly backed Bill for Governor, and then for President (donating $100,000). http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2006/0828.html

read the rest http://henwhisperer.blogspot.com/2008/02/before-you-vote-for-hillary-clinton.html

Nice Anti-GMO Blog

Recently I joined something called blog catalog to get some more traffic to this blog. I am not sure if I am getting any more traffic but I have found some great blogs over at this site and have even made a virtual friend. The blog find of today is

Genetically Modified Foods, The Silent Killer

If you are like me and concerned about ingesting food that contains GMO's or aspertame than go and read this blog. Lots of information and I hope the info keeps on coming.

GMO's Killing Bees?

Could genetically modified crops be killing bees?

John McDonald, Special to The Chronicle

Saturday, March 10, 2007


With reports coming in about a scourge affecting honeybees, researchers are launching a drive to find the cause of the destruction. The reasons for rapid colony collapse are not clear. Old diseases, parasites and new diseases are being looked at.

Over the past 100 or so years, beekeepers have experienced colony losses from bacterial agents (foulbrood), mites (varroa and tracheal) and other parasites and pathogens. Beekeepers have dealt with these problems by using antibiotics, miticides or integrated pest management.

While losses, particularly in overwintering, are a chronic condition, most beekeepers have learned to limit their losses by staying on top of new advice from entomologists. Unlike the more common problems, this new die-off has been virtually instantaneous throughout the country, not spreading at the slower pace of conventional classical disease.

As an interested beekeeper with some background in biology, I think it might be fruitful to investigate the role of genetically modified or transgenic farm crops. Although we are assured by nearly every bit of research that these manipulations of the crop genome are safe for both human consumption and the environment, looking more closely at what is involved here might raise questions about those assumptions.

The most commonly transplanted segment of transgenic DNA involves genes from a well-known bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has been used for decades by farmers and gardeners to control butterflies that damage cole crops such as cabbage and broccoli. Instead of the bacterial solution being sprayed on the plant, where it is eaten by the target insect, the genes that contain the insecticidal traits are incorporated into the genome of the farm crop. As the transformed plant grows, these Bt genes are replicated along with the plant genes so that each cell contains its own poison pill that kills the target insect.

In the case of field corn, these insects are stem- and root-borers, lepidopterans (butterflies) that, in their larval stage, dine on some region of the corn plant, ingesting the bacterial gene, which eventually causes a crystallization effect in the guts of the borer larvae, thus killing them.

What is not generally known to the public is that Bt variants are available that also target coleopterans (beetles) and dipterids (flies and mosquitoes). We are assured that the bee family, hymenopterans, is not affected.

That there is Bt in beehives is not a question. Beekeepers spray Bt under hive lids sometimes to control the wax moth, an insect whose larval forms produce messy webs on honey. Canadian beekeepers have detected the disappearance of the wax moth in untreated hives, apparently a result of worker bees foraging in fields of transgenic canola plants.

Bees forage heavily on corn flowers to obtain pollen for the rearing of young broods, and these pollen grains also contain the Bt gene of the parent plant, because they are present in the cells from which pollen forms.

Is it not possible that while there is no lethal effect directly to the new bees, there might be some sublethal effect, such as immune suppression, acting as a slow killer?

The planting of transgenic corn and soybean has increased exponentially, according to statistics from farm states. Tens of millions of acres of transgenic crops are allowing Bt genes to move off crop fields.

A quick and easy way to get an approximate answer would be to make a comparison of colony losses of bees from regions where no genetically modified crops are grown, and to put test hives in areas where modern farming practices are so distant from the hives that the foraging worker bees would have no exposure to them.

Given that nearly every bite of food that we eat has a pollinator, the seriousness of this emerging problem could dwarf all previous food disruptions.

John McDonald is a beekeeper in Pennsylvania. He welcomes comments or questions about the bee problem at mcbee_77@yahoo.com. General comments to home@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/10/HOG5FOH9VQ1.DTL

This article appeared on page F - 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle

What's in Your (not organic) Milk?

This is what you should expect from any milk that is conventionally raised (plus a bunch of antibiotics and cows being fed GMO grains). Organic milk from industrial organic sources may not have hormones in them but the milk is ultra-pasteurized which is also not good as pasteurization changes the chemistry of the milk profoundly. This is a huge reason I drink raw milk from cows raised on pastured who do not do drugs.

• Injected into dairy cattle, the product can increase milk production from 10% up to 40%.
• In November 1993, the product was approved for use in the U.S. by the FDA, and its use began in February 1994.
• The product is now sold in all 50 states. According to Monsanto, approximately one third of dairy cattle in the U.S. are injected with Posilac [the brand name of rBGH]; approximately 13,000 dairy producers use the product.
• It is now the top selling dairy cattle pharmaceutical product in the U.S.
• The FDA does not require special labels for products produced from cows given rbST.
• Use of rBGH in cows also increases insulin growth factor (IGF-1) in milk.

Meanwhile, the European Commission had commissioned two independent committees of internationally recognized experts to undertake a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on both the veterinary and public health effects of rBGH. The veterinary committee fully confirmed and extended the Canadian warnings and conclusions. The public health committee confirmed earlier reports of excess levels of the naturally occurring Insulin-like-Growth Factor One (IGF-1), including its highly potent variants, in rBGH milk and concluded that these posed major risks of cancer, particularly of the breast and prostate, besides promoting the growth and invasiveness of cancer cells by inhibiting their programmed self-destruction (apoptosis). Faced with this latest well documented scientific evidence from both Canada and Europe, the U.S. bowed to the inevitable and failed to challenge the Codex ruling in support of the European moratorium. [emphasis mine]

In short, rBGH causes increased levels of IGF-1 in milk. IGF-1 (in high levels) causes breast and prostate cancer. Non-rBGH milk normally contains IGF-1 too - just in lower levels:

Milk contains IGF-1 for good reason: milk is designed for babies, and IGF-1 helps us grow. IGF-1 affects growth, as well as other functions, and is normally found in our blood. Higher levels of IGF-1, however, appear to stimulate cancer cells.

This is Deeply Disturbing

The Times January 14, 2007


GM hens lay eggs to fight cancer
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor

SCIENTISTS have created the world’s first breed of designer chickens, genetically modified to lay eggs capable of producing drugs that fight cancer and other life-threatening diseases.


Researchers at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, which created Dolly the cloned sheep, have bred a 500-strong flock of the birds.

The breakthrough offers the prospect of mass-producing drugs that currently cost the NHS thousands of pounds a year per patient, at a fraction of the price.

The ISA Browns, a common breed of egg-laying hen, have each had human genes added to their DNA to enable them to produce complex medicinal proteins. These human proteins are secreted into the whites of the birds’ eggs, from which they can be easily extracted to produce drugs.

The Roslin scientists have achieved a world first in creating birds that “breed true”, meaning the added human genes are passed on from generation to generation. This opens the way for the creation of industrial-scale flocks and offers a potentially unlimited cheap source of medicinal proteins.

One of the chicken lines produces human interferon of a kind closely resembling a drug widely used to treat multiple sclerosis. Such drugs have a potential worldwide market worth hundreds of millions.

Another line could be useful in treating skin cancer, by producing miR24, an antibody that could also potentially treat arthritis, which afflicts 7m people in Britain.

The institute is understood to have created at least two other lines of genetically modified chicken, whose eggs could produce drugs with the potential to fight cancer.

The research is a triumph for Dr Helen Sang, the leader of the Roslin team who, since 1997, has sought to make the technique work without new genes being lost as they are transmitted down the generations. Ian Wilmut, the Edinburgh University professor who created Dolly at Roslin, was an adviser on the project.

“This is potentially a very powerful new way to produce specialised drugs,” said Dr Karen Jervis of Viragen Scotland, a biotech company that is working closely with Roslin. “We have bred five generations of chickens so far and they all keep producing high concentrations of pharmaceuticals.”

Other researchers have already produced transgenic chickens — with artificially altered DNA — but the ability to make desirable proteins has generally vanished in a generation or two.

At present, therapeutic proteins are mainly made in bio-reactors, vats of bacteria or other cells that have been genetically modified. However, extracting the relevant proteins is expensive and difficult.

In Roslin’s research — to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tomorrow — the scientists will describe how they extracted embryonic cockerels from hens, before the eggs had formed.

The embryos, just small clusters of cells, were then each injected into surrogate eggs and “infected” with a virus genetically modified to contain human genes. These genes contained the blueprint for the human proteins that the researchers were trying to produce.

The virus carried those human genes into the cells of the embryonic cockerels where they became incorporated into the bird’s DNA.

When the so-called “founder cockerels” hatched, they were mated with ordinary female hens. Their progeny were found to contain the same human genes and, to the delight of the researchers, the females all produced the desired protein in their eggs.

“In theory, this technique could be used with a wide range of genes, so that hens could be used to make many different proteins,” said Andrew Wood of Oxford BioMedica, whose researchers collaborated on the project. “Potentially, this could lead to treatments for ill-nesses including Parkinson’s Disease, diabetes and a range of cancers.”

The ISA Brown, a French breed that is a cross between Rhode Island Red and Rhode Island White chickens, produces about 300 eggs, per hen, a year.

Some scientists are cautious about the advance, pointing out that biotechnol-ogy firms have been promising a new generation of drugs from transgenic animals for nearly two decades.

So far, however, perhaps the world’s most successful transgenic animal is the glofish — a tropical fish modified with DNA from a sea anemone and a jelly fish to give it a fluorescent skin. It is used as a pet.

Last year saw a breakthrough for such technologies when European regulators approved the world’s first medicine derived from transgenic animals. ATryn, an anticlotting agent for people with a rare inherited disease, is made from the milk of goats whose DNA has been modified to incorporate human genes.

Dr Barbara Glenn of Bio, which represents the American biotech industry, said the Roslin research was likely to be the first of many similar breakthroughs. “This technique is simply a way of producing human proteins, which is why it is applicable to so many different diseases,” she said.

For the NHS, the hope is that such technologies will help to minimise its annual bill for prescription drugs which was £8 billion last year; an increase of 46% since 2000.

Andrew Tyler, the director of Animal Aid, which campaigns to improve animal welfare, said genetically manipulating farm animals was a reckless and dangerous procedure. “The fallout for the animals of creating GM individuals in enormous. The modification process produces many casualties, with young animals being born with defects and females suffering miscarriages and other problems,” he said.

Say No to Burpee Seeds

I just found out that Monsanto bought out Burpee seeds as of Jan 1 of this year. Monsanto, it seems, is attempting to buy out all the seed companies in the world and that is bad because those who control the seed sources control about everything else.

I hope Monsanto does not do stupid things like drop most of the seed varieties it now owns (which is likely) or turn many of these veggie and fruit seeds into GMO (again this is very very likely).

Until a few minutes ago I was allowing Burpee ads to appear on my AdSense ads. That will no longer happen as I will not knowingly allow any Monsanto owned companies to advertise on this blog because as far as I am concerned Monsanto is an evil multinational corp that has brought no good to the planet as well as having a proven track record of being against organic farming and smal diversified farms

Links, Links and More Links

I was over at Small Meadow Farm's blog and found all sorts of interesting things to read and links to surf. I especially like the rant "Food for Thought". There is also an entry about The Rodale Institute's challenge to the NBC biased reporting on organic foods last month which you can read here. It's nice that an entity with a lot of clout is going after NBC. Maybe NBC will be courageous enough to do a segment using the Rodale take on organics vs conventional. We can only hope.

In my email inbox I found this interesting set of links from the OEFFA list serv:
1. THE MYTH:
Industrial food is safe, healthy, and nutritious.
http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth1.html
2. THE MYTH:
Industrial food is cheap.
http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth2.html
3. THE MYTH:
Industrial agriculture is efficient.
http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth3.html
4. THE MYTH:
Biotechnology will solve the problems of industrial agriculture.
http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth4.html
5. THE MYTH:
Industrial agriculture benefits the environment and wildlife.
http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth5.html
6. THE MYTH:
Industrial agriculture will feed the world.
http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth6.html
7. THE MYTH:
Industrial food offers more choices.
http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth7.html

Non GMO Resolution

Press Release


Source: The Institute for Responsible Technology


Iowa, Dec. 26 -- Consumers of any age can improve their health with one New Year's resolution. "Avoid eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs)," says expert Jeffrey M. Smith, who points to evidence of mounting health risks associated with gene-spliced foods.


Smith urges consumers to cross off brands that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients, which are in 60-70% of foods sold in the U.S. The principle offenders are non-organic soy and corn derivatives and canola and cottonseed oils. Thus, Ragu tomato sauce would be off limits, since it contains corn syrup and soybean oil, but Light Ragu or Barilla brand sauces, which contain olive oil and no corn sweetener, are non-GMO.

"Consumers in the U.S. are being used as human guinea pigs by biotech companies, which rushed their GMOs to market without adequate studies and before the science was ready," says Smith. "Once Americans learn they are feeding these high-risk foods to their children, they will demand non-GMO alternatives." In Europe, where consumer knowledge about GMOs is considerably higher, shoppers' concerns prompted food manufacturers there to remove all GM ingredients. Smith sees this trend building in the US, with more and more healthy brands declaring ingredients "Non-GMO" on the label.

Smith's new book, Genetic Roulette: The documented health risks of genetically engineered foods, due out in the spring, links GMOs to risks such as allergies, immune system dysfunction, potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, stunted organs and death. "Many of the beliefs about DNA that were popular when GM foods were introduced ten years ago," he says, "have been proven wrong. Swapping genes between species turns out to have far more unpredicted dangerous side effects than we thought."

Animals choose non-GMO

Smith also documents how several animals, when given the option, choose non-GM food over GMOs. These include cows, pigs, elk, deer, raccoons, squirrels, mice, rats and geese. He says a non-GMO New Year's resolution will help people elevate their choices to match the wisdom of the animals.

Cloned food may be FDA deja vu

“The FDA’s recent announcement declaring milk and meat from cloned animals as safe,” says Smith, “reminds us of their 1992 approval of GM crops. When the agency’s internal files were made public years later, they revealed that the FDA’s GMO policy was dictated by corporate manipulation, not sound science. Warnings by government scientists were ignored by political appointees from the biotech industry.” Smith adds, “And like GMOs, the FDA does not want labels on cloned food, thereby forcing the entire population into their dangerous uncontrolled experiment.”

Jeffrey Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception, the world's bestselling book on GMOs. He is the founder and executive director of The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) and a leading spokesperson on the risks of GM foods. Go to www.responsibletechnology.org for eater-friendly tips for avoiding GMOs at home and in restaurants. Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception, the world’s bestselling book on GM foods. His forthcoming book, Genetic Roulette, documents more than 60 health risks of GM foods in easy-to-read two-page spreads, and demonstrates how current safety assessments are not competent to protect consumers from the dangers. He is available for media at media@responsibletechnology.org.


Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org.

Permission is granted to publishers and webmasters to reproduce issues of Spilling the Beans in whole or in part. Just email us at column@seedsofdeception.com to let us know who you are and what your circulation is, so we can keep track.

The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to end the genetic engineering of our food supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. We warmly welcome your donations and support.

© copyright Jeffrey M. Smith 2007

NAIS Agriculture Facism

NAIS is a system the USDA will be implementing sometime in 2008. Over the past 3 or 4 months I have been reading more and more about this on the web. I have seen a couple of dynamite posts about this issue over on the Cauldron Ridge Blog and the slow food website has a lot of information and good discussion going on in their forum (the two items below are from that website). Personally I am opposed to this idea for many of the reasons stated in the article by Mr Lamb and the response to Mr lamb's article.

Remember eating is indeed a political act.

Henry Lamb is the founding Chairman of Sovereignty International
(1996), and the founding ECO of the Environmental Conservation
Organization (1988). He is publisher of eco-logic Powerhouse, a widely
read on-line, and print magazine. His columns are frequently translated
into Spanish and published throughout Central and South America, Spain,
Portugal, and Italy. He has attended United Nations meetings around the
world, is a frequent speaker at conferences and workshops across the
country, and is a regular guest on dozens of talk radio programs. He
has provided testimony for the U.S. Congress, as well as State
Legislatures, and has served as a consultant to FOX News on U.N.
affairs.

For eight years, he was CEO of a national trade association for
contractors, headquartered in Chicago, coming to that position from CEO
of a private construction company specializing in erosion control and
water management structures. His background includes teaching at the
secondary school level, and serving four years as a legislative analyst
for a county government in Florida. E-Mail: h...@freedom.org

The mark on the beast
By Henry Lamb
http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20060102/lamb.shtml

January 15, 2006

The stated purpose of the program (NAIS) is to enable government to
trace, within 48 hours, the source of a faulty animal food product. The
effect of the program is the transfer of the control of private
property to the government - while forcing the property owner to pay
the cost of the transfer.

Last week's column asked: "What do you call it when government takes
away the use of private property, but leaves the title in the name of
the property owner?" Dozens of letter writers correctly responded:
"Fascism." Last week's column was about government controlling the use
of land; this week, the government is controlling the use of animals.

The program is not limited to commercial producers; it includes the
half-dozen chickens at Grandma's house. Her "premises" and each chicken
must be registered with the government, as the program now stands. In
fact, the pet parakeet in a cage on the 20th floor of a condo in Miami
Beach must also be registered, along with the premises. As the program
now stands, there are no exceptions.

Surely some of the stupidity will be squeezed out of the program as
more people become aware of it, and insist that government has gone too
far. The question, however, is not how far is too far, but whether
government should go there at all.

Nothing among the enumerated powers granted to the federal government
by the U.S. Constitution can be construed to include the power to
control the use of private property. The federal government is
empowered to regulate interstate commerce, but Grandma's chickens and
Aunt Jane's parakeet do not constitute interstate commerce.

Everyone wants a safe, abundant, and affordable food supply, which
America has enjoyed for years - without a National Animal
Identification System. Why is it necessary now? The increased terrorist
threat certainly justifies tightening up security in the food chain.
But, the NAIS does little or nothing to tighten security, while
imposing ridiculous burdens upon the small producer.

The NAIS was initiated by the National Institute of Animal Agriculture,
a non-government organization consisting of the leaders of
agribusiness. The program they designed tends to shift the burden,
cost, and ultimate responsibility for food safety from the agribusiness
giants to the small producer.

Interstate commerce conjures up images of businesses such as Tyson
Foods, which has mastered the art of vertically integrated marketing.
Tyson controls the production of its chickens from birth to market,
using farmers only to provide space and labor to get their product to
slaughter. Here is where government should focus its regulatory concern
- and leave Grandma's chickens alone.

Suppliers of beef, pork, and lamb, often buy their animals from small
producers, who work hard to raise healthy, marketable animals. The
agribusiness suppliers are free to buy, or not buy, from any producer.
Here, at the point where the product enters the food chain, is where
responsibility, security, and regulatory control should be focused -
not on the already overburdened small producer.

But, no. The NAIS requires the small producer to not only bear the cost
of the program, but also to be the ultimate scapegoat in the event that
an agribusiness supplier's product is found to be faulty, for whatever
reason. Should little Johnny get sick after eating a hamburger made
with beef supplied by BigAgri Packing Company, BigAgri simply points
the finger to the producer, or producers, whose cows were in the batch
from which Johnny's hamburger was made. Agribusiness shifts its
responsibility for buying only healthy product to the farmer, who must
guarantee his animals to be healthy.

The NAIS is an industry-designed program, which will drive small
producers out of business, reduce competition, and ultimately put both
supply and price in the hands of industry giants - unless opponents
of this program get organized.

And here's a reader response to Henry's article from a small farmer...

NAIS: Fascism is what we should call it
By Edward H. Ey
http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20060102/edwardhey.shtml

January 15, 2006

Henry,

Congratulations on grabbing the tip of the NAIS iceberg. You clearly
understand the essence of the major issues facing small agricultural
producers, and the general public. But - there is a much broader set
of implications that you might want to look into.

The incestuous relationship between agribusiness and the USDA is well
recognized by many farmers and livestock producers. The USDA is no
longer a useful agency for American agriculture. The USDA has become
the conscript of agribusiness. All key positions at the USDA are now
held by former agribusiness people, or their minions.

The NAIS scheme currently has little or no support, among small and
independent farmers and livestock producers. Few to none of my friends
and neighbors have bought into the NAIS Ponzi scheme. We recognize the
sleaze, the illicit design, the unnecessary cost, and the political
intentions of this latest useless offering from Washington, D.C.

Beyond the overt display of tracking animals, the NAIS plan is to be
used by the IRS to verify farmer and producer incomes, and the system
will also become a tool used by agribusiness. The USDA has backed away
from direct implementation of the system, and will use contractors and
private organizations to do the dirty work of installing the system and
collecting the data. The Secretary of Agricultural knows when to back
away from a smelly pig.

So, why is the collection of agricultural livestock data important
beyond the control of private property? The answer is because the
agribusiness giants will then have access to all of the information on
the database. They will have knowledge about all sources and supplies
of commodity animals. They will use such information to improve their
ongoing practice of captive supply and market price manipulation. The
USDA has promised protection of my private producer information, once
its on the database. Right! If anyone believes that, they can see me
about some swamp land I have for sale in Florida.

To gain a better understanding of this menace, you might be interested
in the actions and writings of Mike Callicrate, the actions of the OCM
outfit in Nebraska, plus some of the issues defined by R-CALF other
than BSE imports, and the increasing national trend of small farmers
and producers to form more independent co-op outfits to counter the
threat of agribusiness.

Agribusiness killed the independent chicken and pork industries, and
they are now attempting to do the same thing to independent cattle
producers. Agribusiness and the USDA are successfully depopulating the
Great Plains, but a national range war has begun in the cattle
business, and it's liable to get very nasty, very soon.

Fascism is what we call it, when private property is controlled by
government. Clearly, there is no issue more important for the Supreme
Court to fix than private property rights.

But, what do you call it when multi-national corporations (e.g.
Monsanto, ADM) control all grain seeds, via patents, GMOs, and chemical
controls? I still haven't figured out how a corporation can be allowed
to patent a life form.

What do you call it when all beef is controlled by the likes of Tyson,
Cargill, et al, and imported meat receives the coveted USDA stamp of
approval? What do you call it when all pork is controlled and imported
from overseas by Smithfield?

What do you call it when imported agricultural products grown with
illegal chemicals in foreign countries (Mexico), and imported beef
products contain life threatening contaminants, packing house residuals
(Brazil), and potential disease (Brazil and Japan's BSE threat), and
the government will not implement Country Of Origin Labeling
legislation? Why doesn't the U.S. government want me to know where this
food comes from?

I do not mean to belabor the obvious, with these ongoing real events
now taking place in our country, but you must agree that if one thinks
oil dependency on the Middle East is a major problem, just wait until
our food supply system is controlled by agribusiness, their USDA
puppets, Wall Street, and foreign governments.

The current lobbyist scandals in Congress pale by comparison to what is
taking place in our national agricultural system. Actions now underway
by agribusiness and the USDA will seal the fate of the American family
farm and the American consumer. The NAIS is but one step in the overall
strategy.

Henry, you can render a great service to the citizens of this country
by looking into the rest of the USDA/Agribusiness greasy iceberg, and
reporting on it. I promise that you will find the overall strategy of
agribusiness, and its future plans to control your foodstuffs beyond
belief, and very scary.

No plant diversity, no variations, everything monoculture hybrids, and
no controls on quality, origins, or nutrition should raise major
concerns. But, Americans will likely continue to buy from the "Lowest
Prices Always" businesses that feed on the bottom, right next to
agribusiness and the USDA.

Edward H. Ey
East Branch Farm

Another GMO article

Rammed Down Our Throats

Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, the best-selling book on genetic engineering, spills the beans to noseweek about the hidden dangers in the foods we eat and the way massive seed and agrichemical corporations such as Monsanto are manipulating governments and science to foist their questionable products on us. South Africa (along with Brazil and India) is one of Monsanto’s key targets.

noseweek: What motivated you to write ‘Seeds of Deception’?
Jeffrey Smith: In addition to having the inside scoop on many of the dangers of GM foods, I was also aware of several scandalous stories about the biotech industry that would make good reading. Scientists were offered bribes or threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was omitted or distorted. Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of responsibilities, or fired. Laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed stomach lesions and seven of the 40 died within two weeks. The crop was approved. When a top scientist tried to alert the public about other alarming discoveries, he lost his job and was silenced with threats of a lawsuit. The warnings of US government scientists were ignored and denied by the Food and Drug Administration, whose policy chief was a former attorney, and later vice president, for Monsanto. A University of California professor claimed he was threatened by a senior Mexican government official who allegedly implied, “We know where your children go to school,” trying to get him to withdraw an incriminating paper from publication. And news reports about GMOs were cancelled due to threats from Monsanto’s attorneys.

I figured that these stories alone would be fascinating to readers. So I weaved the science and facts about the technology into the stories, and the book became the international bestseller on the topic.

What is your interest in Africa?
Many senior African officials I have met at various international conferences have confided that they have been pressurised by the US government and biotech companies, and have little access to the type of information that I have documented. I hope to pierce the biotech myths that advocates propagate, so that the public and Africa’s leaders can make decisions based on facts, not spin.

Scientists representing the biotech industry claim that GM foods have been extensively tested and are safe. They say that anti-GM campaigners like you are unscientific and base their arguments on emotion. Can you comment?A recently published linguistic analysis of biotech advocates concludes what many of us have observed for years. Using unscientific, emotional, and even irrational arguments, GM proponents attack critics as unscientific, emotional and irrational. In reality, critics demand more science, not less. We demand facts, not PR hype.

There are many ways in which a GM food could create toxins, allergens, carcinogens, or nutritional problems. The process of inserting a gene into a DNA can dramatically disrupt the normal genes. One study showed that as many as 5% of the natural genes changed their levels of expression when a single gene was inserted. Genes can get turned off or deleted, switched on permanently, scrambled, duplicated, or relocated. Gene insertion coupled with growing cells from tissue culture, creates hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the genome. On top of all this, the inserted gene can get mutated, truncated, or blended with the crop’s natural gene code. And it appears that the inserted genes get rearranged over time as well. Any of these changes can create serous problems in themselves, or set in motion a chain of reactions that can lead to problems.

Tragically, the studies conducted on GM crops are not designed to identify the vast majority of possible problems. When scientists understand the dangers involved with GM technology and then discover what studies are actually conducted, they’re shocked. They realize the extent to which consumers are being used as guinea pigs, just so the biotech industry doesn’t have to spend the money doing the proper research. There are fewer than 20 peer-reviewed animal-feeding safety studies. And many of these are industry-funded and clearly rigged to avoid finding problems. No, GM crops are not adequately tested for safety. Part of my work is to bring that to the public’s attention.

In ‘Seeds of Deception’ you cite a study by a leading expert on genetic modification, Dr Arpad Pusztai, which showed that a strain of GM potatoes retarded the growth of rats and damaged their immune systems. But is there any evidence of GM foods harming humans?
First of all, let’s summarize the evidence collected from animals. Pusztai’s government-funded study demonstrated that rats fed a GM potato developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, damaged immune systems, partial atrophy of the liver, and inhibited development of their brains, livers and testicles. Rats fed a GM tomato developed stomach lesions, and seven of 40 died within two weeks. Mice fed GM maize had problems with blood cell formation as well as kidney and liver lesions. Those fed GM soy had problems with liver cell formation, and the livers of rats fed GM canola were heavier. Pigs fed GM maize on several Midwest farms developed false pregnancies, sterility, or gave birth to bags of water. Twelve cows fed GM maize in Germany died mysteriously. And twice the number of chickens died when fed GM maize compared to those fed natural maize.

Remarkably, there have been no human clinical feeding trials, and no post market surveillance of possible health effects in humans. The UK’s Food Standards Agency had asked supermarket executives for the purchasing data from the 20 million consumers using loyalty cards, so they could see if those eating GM had higher rates of cancer, birth defects, or childhood allergies. When the study was made public, the embarrassed government cancelled their plans.

Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Without follow-up tests, we can’t be sure if genetic engineering was the cause, but there are plenty of ways in which genetic manipulation can boost allergies. For example, the most common allergen in soy is called trypsin inhibitor. GM soy contains significantly more of this compared with natural soy.

I have also documented how one epidemic in the 1980s was caused by a brand of the food supplement L-tryptophan, which had been created through genetic modification. The disease killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness or disability in about 5,000–10,000 others. The Food and Drug Administration withheld information from Congress and the public, in an apparent attempt to protect the biotech industry.

If GM foods do affect the human immune system, what are their potential risks in South Africa where we have a high incidence of HIV/AIDS?
If the foods were creating health problems in the population, it might take years or decades before we identified the cause. The L-tryptophan epidemic provides a chilling example. The only reason that doctors were able to identify that an epidemic was occurring, was because the new disease had three simultaneous characteristics: it was rare, acute, and fast acting. Even then it took years to discover and was nearly missed entirely.

If GM foods affect the immune system, which has been shown in animal models, there are numerous ways that could manifest in humans, from mild symptoms to serious diseases. Certainly it could worsen existing diseases or create complications. Since no human studies are conducted, however, we don’t know. It’s best just to avoid eating GM products.

Critics of Monsanto demonise the company, but it has publicly pledged itself to the principles of ‘dialogue, transparency, sharing, sharing in benefits, and respect’. Doesn’t this indicate that their heart is in the right place?
Actions speak louder than words. Consider just a few of the facts about this company:

In 2005, Monsanto paid a $1.5 million fine to the US justice department for giving bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 Indonesian officials, trying to get their cotton approved without an environmental impact study.

Six government scientists testified before the Canadian Senate that a Monsanto official offered them a bribe of $1-2 million, if they approved the company’s GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH) without further study.

Legal threats from Monsanto resulted in the cancellation of a TV news series about rbGH, the cancellation of a book critical of Monsanto, and the shredding of 14,000 issues of a magazine dedicated to exposing Monsanto.

Monsanto’s PR firm created the so-called “Dairy Coalition” in order to pressure major US newspapers to withdraw stories critical of rbGH.

Documents that were stolen from the FDA showed that when Monsanto researchers wanted to show that rbGH didn’t interfere with fertility, they allegedly added cows to the study that were pregnant, prior to injection.

Other researchers supporting rbGH had pasteurized milk 120 times longer than normal and even spiked the milk with huge amounts of powdered hormone, to try to claim that pasteurization destroyed the hormone.

Monsanto omitted incriminating data altogether from their 1996 published study on GM soybeans. When it was later recovered by an investigator, it showed that GM soy contained significantly lower levels of protein and other nutrients, and toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin that may block the body’s ability to assimilate other nutrients. Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much as seven times the amount of trypsin inhibitor, a major soy allergen. Monsanto named their study, “The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans.”

In the feeding portion of the same study, they fed mature animals instead of the more sensitive young ones, diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein 10- or 12–fold, used too much protein, and never weighed the organs or examined them under a microscope. These and other flaws have made it the subject of peer-reviewed critiques, which exposed how GM food studies are designed in such a way as to overlook detection of even significant problems.

In July 1999, independent researchers published a study showing that GM soy contains 12-14% less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. Monsanto responded with its own study, concluding that soy’s phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis. Researchers failed to disclose, however, that they had instructed the laboratory to use an obsolete method of detection – one that had been prone to highly variable results.

Documents made public from a lawsuit revealed that FDA policy on GM foods was deceitful. The policy claimed that the agency was not aware of any meaningful or uniform differences between GM and non-GM foods, and therefore did not require any safety studies. The disclosed memos showed, however, that the overwhelming consensus among the FDA’s own scientists was that GM crops were significantly different, and that they urged their superiors to require long term safety testing due to the possible presence of unpredictable toxins, allergens and new diseases. The person in charge of policy at the FDA who apparently ignored the scientists was Monsanto’s former attorney. He later became Monsanto’s vice president.

One FDA scientist arbitrarily increased the allowable levels of antibiotics in milk 100-fold, in order to facilitate the approval of Monsanto’s rbGH. She had just arrived at the FDA from Monsanto.

Monsanto consistently reported increased yields on GM soy, canola and cotton, whereas independent studies show decreases. For example, scientists published a study demonstrating a nearly 80% increase in Indian cotton yields based only on test plot data supplied to them by Monsanto. In May, 2005, however, a study by the government of Andrah Pradesh found a decrease of about 18%. When they told Monsanto to pay about US$10 million compensation to the farmers, the corporation refused and was kicked out of the state altogether.

Monsanto has a long history of wrongdoings. They had claimed PCBs were safe, DDT was safe, Agent Orange was safe. They were wrong. In fact, court documents revealed that the company withheld evidence about the safety of their PCBs to the residents of the town that was being poisoned by their factory. On February 22, 2002, a court found Monsanto guilty of negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage. Outrage, according to Alabama law, usually requires conduct “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”

Monsanto’s detractors criticize the fact that the company has patented seeds and other genetic material. Surely they are entitled to protect their intellectual property, just like any other inventor?
There is enormous controversy about patents on life. Further, many believe that patenting genes is more about discovery than invention, and is therefore privatizing what should remain in the public commons. It’s also interesting how Monsanto chooses to enforce its patents. They have sued 150 farmers in North America and received more than $15 million in judgments. In one case, they sued a farmer who had the company’s seeds blow onto his land from a nearby farm and by passing trucks.

Have Monsanto ever tried to silence you?
Because my book is now influencing policy in many regions, I occasionally hear criticism from biotech advocates who try to dismiss the book as a whole. They don’t challenge specific details, however, since the book is carefully documented and has been through a thorough review by many senior scientists.

The website www.health24.com says that ‘there are exhaustive tests to ensure that any genetic change in a foodstuff does not increase the allergenicity of the food.’ If GM food is as questionable as you say, why have US regulatory authorities allowed products that contain GM material onto supermarket shelves?
The FDA’s own scientist Carl Johnson wrote in a memo, “Are we asking the crop developer to prove that food from his crop is non-allergenic? This seems like an impossible task.” It is impossible to guarantee that a GM crop isn’t an allergen. People tend to develop allergies after being exposed to a substance over time. But the proteins newly introduced into GM crops typically come from bacteria and have never before existed in the human diet.

The World Health Organization developed a list of criteria designed to minimize the likelihood that a foreign protein from a GM crop will be allergenic. Unfortunately, the GM soy, maize, and papaya already on the market fail those criteria.

In addition, the process of gene insertion can disrupt the DNA and increase a known allergen or create a new unknown allergen.

Not only is there no comprehensive allergy testing before GM foods are released, remarkably there is no post market surveillance. When it was revealed that soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% after GM soy was introduced into the UK, it’s simply amazing that no follow up studies were conducted to see if GM soy was more allergenic.

You are clearly concerned about the way GM foods are being developed and marketed, but do you think the technology has any potential benefits?
The current technology used in GM crops on the market is based on science that is 40 years old. Many of the key assumptions used as the basis for safety claims have been overturned. We know very little about how the DNA functions, and our paradigms are being shifted every few months with new discoveries. I am not against DNA research. And perhaps in the future we can safely manipulate genes for crops or food. But at this stage, it is irresponsible to feed the products of this infant science to millions of people or release them into the environment where they can never be recalled.

My focus, by the way, is not on medical uses of biotechnology, which has an entirely different equation of risk versus benefit.

South Africa has authorized the growing of GM maize for human consumption. Do you know the nature of this modification? What is its intended outcome? The primary trait added to GM corn is the insertion of a gene that creates the Bt-toxin, which is a pesticide. The industry claims that Bt is safe, since it has been used in an organic pesticide for years. This is utter nonsense.

The GM Bt-toxin is engineered to be far more toxic than the natural spray

We are the only country in the world where a GM staple food has been authorized. How will this affect people where 80-90% of their diet consists of maize meal and fresh maize on the cob?
The GM Bt-toxin in maize is hundreds or even a thousand times more concentrated than the spray

The spray degrades in the sunlight in a few days, but the GM variety is produced by every cell of the maize, around the clock, and eaten by the consumer.

Mice exposed to Bt-toxin developed an immune response equal to that of cholera toxin, developed a greater susceptibility to allergies, and developed abnormal and excessive cell growth in their small intestines. Farm workers exposed to even the low dose Bt spray showed evidence of allergic sensitivity, and blood tests showed an immune response. Preliminary evidence found that thirty-nine Philippinos living next to a Bt maize field developed skin, intestinal, and respiratory reactions while the maize was pollinating. Tests of their blood also showed an immune response to the Bt. The only human feeding study ever conducted showed that genes inserted into GM soy actually transferred into gut bacteria. Imagine if the gene that produces the Bt-toxin were to transfer from the maize we eat into our gut bacteria. It could theoretically transform our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories.

In the US, we eat only 3-5% of our caloric intake as maize. I dread to think what might happen to those eating GM maize as the majority of their diet. Some farmers who fed 100% GM corn to their livestock had catastrophes. Twelve cows died on a German farm. And about 25 farmers in North America say their pigs became sterile or had false pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water.

In the US, GM potatoes were withdrawn from the market due to consumer pressure, but in South Africathe Agricultural Research Council with additional funding from USAID are fast-tracking GM potatoes, ostensibly to benefit resource-poor small farmers. Will GM crops benefit Africa’s poor and starving?
The US decided to fast track GM food in 1992, because the Council on Competitiveness identified it as a promising area for increasing US exports and gaining control over the lucrative food supply. USAID has been trying to implement the US agenda in Africa, and many believe that they consciously use contamination as a means to promote acceptance of GM. In fact, University of Washington professor Phil Bereano reported in the Seattle Times in 2002 that Emmy Simmons, assistant administrator of USAID, “said to me after the cameras stopped rolling on a vigorous debate we had on South African TV, ‘In four years, enough GE [genetically engineered] crops will have been planted in South Africa that the pollen will have contaminated the entire continent.’”

There are many safe, sustainable, and life-supporting technologies that can benefit Africa’s poor and starving. Perhaps genetic engineering technology will progress to the point someday that it can also be a worthy candidate. But in its current version, I say, “Run away.”

There is an interesting feature about GM potatoes that makes them potentially more dangerous than most other GM crops. We know that the process of gene insertion combined with tissue culture typically results in hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the genome. Many of these mutations can be corrected through the process of outcrossing – mating the GM crop with non-GM crops. Potatoes are not propagated through outcrossing, and the massive number of mutations created from the transformation process may theoretically remain intact in the GM potatoes on the market. Scientists typically don’t identify the genome-wide mutations before putting GM crops onto the market. It’s a form of gambling with every bite.

South Africa, along with the US, is one of the very few countries in the world that allow the use of genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) on its dairy cows. Is drinking milk from cows injected with rBGH safe?
There are a few known differences between milk from cows injected with rbGH and natural milk. Typically, rbGH milk has more pus, due to increased infections, more antibiotics, used to treat the infections, and more bovine growth hormone.

The hormone level that most critics are concerned about, however, is insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Natural milk contains IGF-1. Milk drinkers increase their levels of IGF-1. Studies suggest that pre-menopausal women under 50 with high levels of IGF-1 are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer. Men are four times more likely to develop prostate cancer. IGF-1 is also implicated in lung and colon cancer. Milk from cows treated with rbGH has significantly higher levels of IGF-1. (No comprehensive study has yet evaluated a direct link between rbGH and human cancer.)

Up to 30% of the soya grown in SA is GM. Soya is used as a protein source by many poor people and in infant formulas. It is also routinely fed to prisoners and mineworkers. What are the implications?
In addition to all that was said above, we know that:

GM soy has sections of its DNA that were scrambled during the gene insertion process. These might result in the creation of toxins, allergens, anti-nutrients, etc.

We know that the inserted gene appears to be unstable and can rearrange over time. This means that it will create a protein that was never intended or tested, and may be a toxin, etc.

The protein it was designed to create has two sections that are identical to known allergens, and therefore might cause dangerous allergic reactions.

Since the inserted gene transfers to gut bacteria, even if you stop eating GM soy for the rest of your life, you still might have this foreign protein being created inside of your intestines.

The promoter, which is inserted into soy to activate the foreign gene, also transfers to gut bacteria, and may switch on one of the bacterium’s genes at random. And this could create a problem.

These are only a few of the reasons why people should just say no to GM soy.

Science is supposedly objective, yet many university academics defend the use of GM crops while others condemn their introduction vigorously. Why?
What may come as a shock to people is the extent to which science is no longer independent and objective. Studies show that the source of funds has a lot to do with the research outcome. Industry-funded studies favour industry’s products. Many scientists admit to making changes in their findings to suit funders. In the field of plant biotech, practically all jobs are funded directly or indirectly by industry. We know of many examples of scientist who lost their jobs, or were threatened or penalized, after expressing concerns about GM products. Attacks on scientists can get quite vicious. As a result, those scientists who still dare to challenge biotechnology are often of retirement age and feel less vulnerable.

So-called independent panels and committees are often stacked with industry representatives. This is part of the industry’s plan, as revealed in leaked documents. They have been remarkably successful at this.

As the technology flounders, revealing how unsafe and unpredictable it is, the industry promotes their biotech myths more vigorously. It appears that they are trying to prop up the image of the technology so they can recoup their investment before the public and the regulators figure out what’s really going on.

Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey Smith is published by Yes! Books. His website is at www.seedsofdeception.com

BIOG

Jeffrey Smith has studied the issues around genetic modification for nearly 10 years. He has lectured on the subject, consulted with a nonprofit group trying to get GM foods labelled, run for US Congress to raise the public awareness about the issues, worked as the vice president for marketing communications at a genetically modified organism (GMO) detection laboratory, and has extensively interviewed scientists and experts worldwide. Over the past two years, he has toured more than 150 cities on five continents, debated with scientists, testified before various government committees, and interviewed activists, scientists, politicians, and farmers. He collaborates with numerous scientists on a monthly syndicated column and is preparing material for two more books on GMOs.

SIDEBAR

On May 23, 2003, President Bush proposed an Initiative to End Hunger in Africa using genetically modified (GM) foods. He also blamed Europe’s “unfounded, unscientific fears” of these foods for hindering efforts to end hunger. Bush was convinced that GM foods held the key to greater yields, expanded US exports, and a better world. His rhetoric was not new. It had been passed on from president to president, and delivered to the American people through regular news reports and industry advertisement.

The message was part of a master plan that had been crafted by corporations determined to control the world’s food supply. This was made clear at a biotech industry conference in January 1999, where a representative from Arthur Andersen Consulting Group explained how his company had helped Monsanto create that plan. First, they asked Monsanto what their ideal future looked like in 15 to 20 years. Monsanto executives described a world with 100% of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Andersen Consulting then worked backward from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.

Integral to the plan was Monsanto’s influence in government, whose role was to promote the technology worldwide and to help get the foods into the marketplace quickly, before resistance could get in the way. A biotech consultant later said, ‘The hope of the industry is that over time, the market is so flooded that there’s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender’.

From: Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith

---

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org. Publishers and webmasters may offer this article or monthly series to your readers at no charge, by emailing column@responsibletechnology.org. Individuals may read the column each month by subscribing to a free newsletter at www.responsibletechnology.org.

---

© Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith. noseweek has granted permission to reproduce this in whole or in part, by acknowledging them as the source. For commercial use in South Africa, please check with us first.

Yes! Books, P.O. Box 469, Fairfield, Iowa 52556 Institute for Responsible Technology +1.641.209.1765 Fax: 888-FAX-7000 (888-329-7000) Email us