Wednesday, February 29, 2012

The One and Only Way You Can Tell if a Food is GMO-Free

Story at-a-glance

  • Vermont has recently introduced bill H.722, requiring labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. Such products would also be prohibited from using advertising or promotional material that states or implies that the food is “natural”. If passed, the bill will take effect in 2014
  • Other US states pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods include California, Michigan and Washington
  • Mandatory labeling of GM foods is becoming even more important to counteract laws that prevent anti-GMO efforts. So far, 14 US states have passed laws to protect the unabated expansion of GM seed use. Pending legislation in Michigan now also seeks to prohibit local governments from passing ordinances that impede or prohibit the use of GM seeds of all kinds         Message from Dr. Mercola:

  • A bill has recently been introduced in the Vermont state legislature that would require food to be labeled as genetically engineered if it is entirely or partially produced with genetically engineered ingredients.
    If passed, the bill, H.722, also known as the 'VT Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act' i, will take effect in 2014.
    The bill also forbids any such food from using advertising or promotional material that states or implies that the food is:
    • "natural"
    • "naturally made"
    • "naturally grown"
    • "all natural," or
    • Any words of similar meaning
    According to the language of the bill, it would require:
    "... in the case of a raw agricultural commodity, on the package offered for retail sale ... the clear and conspicuous words, 'genetically engineered' on the front of the package ... [or] on a label appearing on the retail store shelf or bin in which such commodity is displayed for sale.
    ... in the case of any processed food, in clear and conspicuous language on the front or back of the package ... the words, 'partially produced with genetic engineering' or 'may be partially produced with genetic engineering'". ii

    More U.S. States Starting to Demand Labeling of GM Foods

    Finally we're starting to see some real opposition against genetically engineered foods in general, and unlabeled GMO's (genetically modified organisms) in particular, in the U.S.! Aside from this Vermont bill, California, Michigan and Washington are also working on ballot initiatives to get mandatory labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods in their states. Vermont takes it a step further though, as the legislation would effectively also end phony "all natural" claims for products that in actuality contain wholly unnatural, GMOs.
    Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85 percent of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.
    Sheer ignorance on the part of American consumers has allowed Monsanto and other biotech companies to saturate the market with their genetically altered wares. And misuse of the "all natural" label has only made matters worse. According to a 2010 Hartman Group poll, more than 60 percent of consumers erroneously believe that the "natural" label implies or suggests the absence of GM ingredients, but that is sadly NOT the case... In fact, at the current time, the ONLY label that can protect you against GM ingredients is the USDA 100% Organic label.
    After reading the Cornucopia Institutes' 2011 report Cereal Crimesiii, many, including myself, were shocked to discover some of their favorite natural and even some organic brands were using GM ingredients! For example, natural products that contained 100 percent genetically modified grains included:
    Kashi® Mother's® Nutritious Living® General Mills Kix®
    GoLean® Bumpers® Hi-Lo®

    Two breakfast cereal products that are currently enrolled in the Non-GMO Project, Barbara's Bakery's Puffins and Whole Foods' 365® Corn Flakes, contained more than 50 percent GM corn. Meanwhile, the control, Nature's Path® USDA certified organic corn flakes, contained only trace amounts of GM contamination (less than 0.5 percent). Another sign that American consumers are getting fed up with being stonewalled on the GMO labeling issue is the fact that lawsuits are starting to crop up, accusing food manufacturers of deceptive and misleading practices over their "all natural" claims. Here are just a couple of recent examples:
    • Frito-Lay is being sued by a New York consumer over their 'all natural' snacks that are actually made using GM ingredients, such as Tostitos and SunChipsiv
    • On August 31, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against Kellogg/Kashi® for allegedly misleading consumers with its "natural" claims. One Kashi® product in particular, GoLean® Shakes, is composed almost entirely of synthetic and unnaturally processed ingredients, according to the plaintiff

    Why We MUST Insist on Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods

    As I said earlier, mandatory labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of GM foods in the U.S. because while GM seeds are banned in several European countries such as Hungary, Germany and Ireland, in the United States, certain states are passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion! At present, no less than 14 states have passed such legislation. Michigan's Senate Bill 777v, if passed, would make that 15. The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws, and would remove "any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds."
    While this type of legislation sounds like crazy nonsense to normal people, such bills are essentially bought and paid for through the millions of dollars Monsanto and other biotech companies spend lobbying the U.S. government each year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government -- a drop from a year earlier, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter.
    Their efforts of persuasion are also made infinitely easier by the fact that an ever growing list of former Monsanto employees are now in positions of power within the federal government.

    Learn More about Genetically Modified (GM) Foods

    Due to lack of labeling, many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GM foods are. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about GM foods and helping your friends and family do the same.
    To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
    Your BEST strategy, however, is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO's you're exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you're not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.
    To learn more about GM foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:

    Your Opportunity to Eliminate Genetically Engineered Foods from the U.S.

    In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to "immediately" require GM labeling if elected. So far, nothing of the sort has transpired.

    Labeling of genetically engineered food is way overdue... Here's how you can get involved to rectify the situation:
    • Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort
    • Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.
    • Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
    • For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
    • Look for in-depth coverage of the issue at the Institute for Responsible Technology, subscribe to Spilling the Beans, and check out their Facebook or Twitter.
    In the meantime, the simplest way to avoid genetically engineered foods is to buy whole, certified organic foods. By definition, foods that are certified organic must never intentionally use genetically engineered organisms, must be produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and come from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed genetically engineered corn feed, although now that genetically engineered alfalfa is approved, grass-fed will not always mean they animals have not consumed genetically engineered feeds.vi
    Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S., so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!
    Donate Today!
  •   Source: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/29/new-vermont-gmo-labeling-policy-officially-introduced.aspx?e_cid=20120229_DNL_art_1

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Monsanto Poisoning the Population

Dr. Andreas Carrasco remained in the locked car and watched with fear as the crowd beat the vehicle and shouted at him — for two hours. His friends who didn’t make it into the vehicle were not so lucky. One ended up paralyzed. Another unconscious. The angry crowd of about 100 were likely organized by a local rice grower who was furious at Carrasco for what he was trying to do that day. Carrasco’s crime? Telling people that Roundup herbicide from Monsanto causes birth defects in animals, and probably humans.

Carrasco is a leading embryologist at the University of Buenos Aires Medical School and the Argentinean national research council. He had heard the horrific stories of peasant farmers working near the vast fields of Roundup Ready soybeans — plants genetically engineered to withstand generous doses of Monsanto’s poisonous weed killer. The short-term impact of getting sprayed was obvious: skin rashes, headaches, loss of appetite, and for one 11 year old Paraguayan boy named Silvino Talavera, who biked through a fog of herbicides in 2003, death. But Carrasco also heard about the rise of birth defects, cancer, and other disorders that now plagued the peasants who were sprayed by plane. He decided to conduct a study.

Exposing Roundup’s 30 year cover-up of birth defects

Carrasco injected minute amounts of Roundup into chicken and frog embryos, and sure enough, the offspring exhibited the same type of birth deformities that the peasant communities were seeing in their newborns. A report by the provincial government of Chaco soon followed, confirming that those living near soy and rice fields sprayed with Roundup and other chemicals did in fact have higher rates of birth defects — nearly a fourfold increase between 2000-2009. (Child cancer rates tripled during the same period.)

Regulatory agencies had given Roundup a green light years before, claiming that it was free of such problems. However after Carrasco’s findings were published, European authorities quietly pushed their official re-assessment of Roundup, due in 2012, back to 2015. And the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, charged with responding to Carrasco’s findings, issued a statement claiming that the Argentine scientist must be mistaken; earlier studies conducted by manufacturers of Roundup (including Monsanto) had already demonstrated that Roundup does not cause birth defects.

But in June 2011, a group of international scientists released a report detailing a massive cover-up that went back to the 1980s. The very industry studies cited by the German Consumer Protection office in fact showed just the opposite. Roundup did increase birth defects. Using scientific sleight of hand, Europe’s regulators had ignored statistically significant increases in birth defects, and so did every other regulatory agency worldwide. Monsanto has relied on these misleading statements of safety by regulators ever since, using them to deny that Roundup causes birth defects.

Monsanto secretly poisoning the population, again and again.

Covering up toxic effects of their products was not new for Monsanto. They’re experts at it. In 2003 the company paid $700 million in settlements for secretly poisoning the population living next to their PCB factory in Anniston, Alabama. Court documents showed the arrogance of Monsanto executives made aware of the product’s effects: “We can’t afford to lose $1 of business,” was the written response in a secret company memo.

Leaked documents also revealed that EPA scientists had charged Monsanto with fraudulently hiding the toxic effects of Agent Orange — effectively preventing Vietnam veterans from collecting compensation for cancer, birth defects, and other symptoms of exposure.
When Carrasco first reported his findings, he got the usual treatment. His results were vehemently denied, and he was attacked in the press by biotech advocates. Four highly aggressive men showed up at his office and tried to interrogate him, but he wasn’t physically attacked. Not until he tried to give a speech on his results in the small Argentine farm town of La Leonesa on August 7, 2010. That was unusual.

Punishing messengers worldwide

When Dr. Irina Ermakova came to her office, the meaning of the charred remains of papers on her desk was unambiguous — it was yet another attempt to intimidate or punish her. So was the theft of samples from her laboratory, and the continuous verbal attacks by biotech advocates. Her crime? She fed rats genetically modified Roundup Ready soy, and reported the results.
Those results were clearly not what the sellers of GM soy wanted us to hear. After female rats were fed GM soy, more than half their babies died within three weeks. The rat pups were also considerably smaller, and in a later experiment, were unable to reproduce. Offspring from mothers fed non-GM soybeans, on the other hand, died at only a 10% rate, and were able to mate successfully.

Journal ambushes scientist

After Ermakova presented the results as “preliminary” at an October 2005 conference, the biotech industry’s damage control teams kicked into high gear. At the center of the coordinated attack was the editor of the journalNature Biotechnologyand four biotech advocates. According to Ermakova, the editor contacted her and told her he was going to include a description of her study as a sort of essay in the journal. She was then asked to summarize her research over the phone, or if she preferred, in writing. Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences, was surprised by the request and asked instead to properly submit the findings for peer review and publication. Oh no, the editor insisted, he just wanted a summary. She sent it in, and the journal sent Ermakova back a proof of the article, with her named as the author.

But that was just a “dummy proof.” What was actually published was quite different. Instead of an essay, the journal had inserted scathing criticisms from the four biotech advocates after nearly every paragraph. Many of Ermakova’s citations were also stripped off and replaced with those chosen by the biotech detractors — to weaken her case. It was an academic lynch mob, conducted by four biotech apologists: Bruce Chassy, Vivian Moses, Val Giddings, and Alan McHughen. All acknowledged that they had no personal experience in the type of research they were condemning, but that didn’t stop them from throwing every type of challenge they could think of at Ermakova.
The purpose of the attack was transparent. It allowed the biotech industry to claim from that point forward that the study showing high death rates was officially refuted and discredited. It also served as a warning: if anyone wanted to defend Ermakova (or do similar research) they too would be mercilessly attacked.

The problem was that nearly all their criticisms were utterly baseless. About 75 % of their arguments, for example, were simply complaints that she didn’t provide sufficient detail. Now remember — she was told toonly provide a summary. Her request to the editor to submit complete details was denied. It was quite a setup. When the details of this ambush were made public, independent scientists chargedNature Biotechnologywith an unethical “premeditated attack.” At least one letter called on the editor to resign.

It didn’t happen. Instead, international pressure against Ermakova got so intense, her boss told her not to do any more studies on GMOs. One of her colleagues even tried to comfort her by suggesting that perhaps the GM soy could solve the human overpopulation problem. (She wasn’t comforted.)

Real life confirms research: 

GM soy = High Infant Mortality for rats

The main valid criticism against Ermakova’s research was that she failed to conduct a biochemical analysis of the feed. Without that, we don’t know if some rogue toxin present in the bag of soy flour might have been responsible for the astonishing death rate and stunted growth in her experiment. But subsequent events at her laboratory suggest otherwise.
After Ermakova repeated the test three times with similar results, the supplier of rat food used at the facility began using GM soy in the formulation. With all the rats now eating GM soy, Ermakova couldn’t conduct any more experiments (she had no controls). After two months, however, she asked her colleagues at the lab about the mortality rate in their rat experiments. It turned out that 99 of 179 (55.3%) rat pups whose parents were fed GM soy-based rat chow had died within the first 20 days. Thus, whatever caused the high death rate does not appear to be confined to the one batch of GM flour used in her experiment. Both the study, and the subsequent laboratory-wide mortality rate, are published in the Russian peer-reviewed journal Ecosinform.

Horrific reproductive disorders

Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also show scary reproductive problems. Ermakova showed that the testicles of rats fed GM soy changed from the normal pink to blue (not published). Peer-reviewed research from Italy also showed changes in mice testicles, including alterations in young sperm cells. A Brazilian team found changes in the uterus and ovaries of female rats. The DNA of mice embryos functioned differently, compared to those whose parents were fed non-GM soy. And when hamsters were fed GM soy for two years, by the third generation, most lost the ability to have babies. The offspring grew at a slower rate and the infant mortality rate was 4-5 times that of the non-GM soy group. Many also had hair growing in their mouths.

When the Austrian government tested Roundup Ready corn (which was also engineered to produce an insecticide), mice had fewer – and smaller – babies.

It’s not possible to know if the reproductive damage was due to the genetic changes in the GM crops, the high residues of Roundup in the GM soybeans and corn, or some other reason. But the American Academy of Environmental Science is among the medical organizations that don’t need more animal studies before issuing a warning. They urge all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets to everyone.

Omnipresent Roundup literally falls from the sky

Although eliminating Roundup Ready soy and corn from our diet will certainly reduce our intake of Roundup, a recent study suggests that getting our exposure down to zero is not possible. In the Midwest during the growing season, Roundup is found in 60–100% of air and rain samples, as well as in streams.

The omnipresence of Roundup in the US is due in large part to the more than 100 million acres of Roundup Ready crops. As farmers pour on Monsanto’s weed killer, weeds are learning to adapt and withstand the poison — so farmers pour on more. In the first 13 years since GM crops were introduced, the use of herbicide-tolerant crops resulted in an additional 383 million pounds more herbicide. And due to the emergence of superweeds (now found in 11 million acres), the increased use of Roundup is accelerating dramatically.

USDA solution? Even more Roundup

The USDA has a unique response to this mounting threat:Add more Roundup. In January 2011 they deregulated yet another Roundup Ready crop, alfalfa — which is widely used for animal feed. Only 7% of the more than 20 million acres of this crop typically gets any herbicide applied to it. But that’s about to change, since Roundup Ready alfalfa will soon be drinking Roundup in a hay field near you.
Not content with just the alfalfa, on July 1 the USDA told Scotts Miracle-Gro that it could introduce Roundup Ready Kentucky Bluegrass to lawns, golf courses, and soccer fields around the nation, without any government oversight.

So now we have Roundup in our food, animal feed, air, rain, and streams, and soon it will be sprayed in high doses where our children play on the grass. It’s not just birth defects that may soon plague America as a result. Roundup is also linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, lower sperm counts, abnormal sperm, human cell death, miscarriages, and other disorders. But it’s also linked to billions in profits for Monsanto. No wonder they are working overtime to silence the scientists and cover-up the findings. .......What if people knew the truth?
You might also like:

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Study: Roundup diluted by 99.8 percent still destroys human DNA

 A new study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology proves once again that there really is no safe level of exposure to Monsanto's Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide formula for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). According to the new findings, Roundup, which is applied by the tens of thousands of tons a year all around the world, is still toxic to human DNA even when diluted to a mere 0.02 percent of the dilution amount at which it is currently applied to GM food crops.

Numerous studies have already identified the fact that Roundup causes DNA damage, not to mention endocrine disruption and cancer. But this new study, which originates out of the Medical University of Vienna, is one of the first to illustrate Roundup's toxicity at such drastically diluted levels, which is a direct contradiction of the agri-giant's talking points about the supposed safety of Roundup.

"Comparisons with results of earlier studies with lymphocytes and cells from internal organs indicate that epithelial cells are more susceptible to the cytotoxic effects and DNA-damaging properties of the herbicide and its formulation," wrote the authors in their abstract.

"Since we found genotoxic (DNA damaging) effects after short exposure to concentrations that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture, our findings indicate that inhalation may cause DNA damage in exposed individuals."

Interestingly, it is not so much just the glyphosate ingredient in Roundup that is extremely poisonous, as much as it is this chemical's amplified toxicity in the presence of other additives in the formula. Polyoxyethyleneamine, for instance, a surfactant that facilitates glyphosate's absorption into cells, has been found to significantly increase Roundup's synergistic toxicity in humans.

Despite Monsanto's claims to the contrary, Roundup is clearly an exceptionally toxic chemical that has no legitimate place in agriculture. According to data compiled by GreenMedInfo.com, Roundup is linked to causing Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, imbalanced hormones in children, DNA damage, low testosterone, endocrine disruption, liver cancer, meningitis, infertility, skin cancer, kidney damage, and even uranium poisoning (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/toxic-ingredient/glyphosate).

Environmentally, Roundup is a pervasive threat to air, water, and particularly groundwater and drinking supplies, as studies have shown that it does not effectively biodegrade after being sprayed. Back in the fall, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released data showing that air and water all across America's "bread belt," where much of our nation's food is grown, is highly contaminated with glyphosate

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Terminator seeds threaten an end to farming

The 12,000-year-old practice in which farm families save their best seed from one year's harvest for the next season's planting may be coming to an end by the year 2000. In March 1998, Delta & Pine Land Co. and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced they had received a US patent on a new genetic technology designed to prevent unauthorized seed-saving by farmers.
The patented technology enables a seed company to genetically alter seed so that the plants that grow from it are sterile; farmers cannot use their seeds. The patent is broad, applying to plants and seeds of all species, including both transgenic (genetically engineered) and conventionally-bred seeds. The developers of the new technology say that their technique to prevent seed-saving is still in the product development stage, and is now being tested on cotton and tobacco. They hope to have a product on the market sometime after the year 2000.
Over the last four years, USDA researchers claim to have spent nearly $190,000 to support research on what the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) calls "Terminator" seed technology. Delta & Pine Land, the seed industry collaborator, devoted $275,000 of in-house expenses and contributed an additional $255,000 to the joint research. According to a USDA spokesperson, Delta & Pine Land Co. has the option to exclusively license the jointly developed patented technology.
The USDA's Willard Phelps explained that the goal is "to increase the value of proprietary seed owned by US seed companies and to open up new markets in second and third world countries."
USDA molecular biologist Melvin J. Oliver, the primary inventor of the technology, explained why the US developed a technology that prohibits farmers from saving seeds: "Our mission is to protect US agriculture and to make us competitive in the face of foreign competition. Without this, there is no way of protecting the patented seed technology."

Source:  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6393/is_n4_v13/ai_n28712586/

Chemtrails and Monsanto’s New Aluminum Resistance Gene

While I might assume a particular position on an issue, that position is subject to change when new or more relevant information becomes available. Remember the sorghum aluminum resistance patent that we thought was created by Monsanto to counter the effects of excess aluminum found in the soil after heavy chemtrailing? Well, it turns out that we were partially right.

Why did Monsanto Develop an Aluminum Resistance Gene?
Monsanto is currently marketing an aluminum resistance gene. Here’s the spin, folks:
Small-scale, resource-poor farmers in developing countries face daily stresses, including poor soils, drought, and lack of inputs. Ongoing trends such as climate change and population growth will likely exacerbate binding stresses. A new generation of genetically engineered (GE) crop research aims to alleviate these pressures through the improvement of subsistence crops—such as cassava, sorghum, and millet—that incorporate traits such as tolerance to drought, water, and aluminum in soils as well as plants with more efficient nitrogen and phosphorus use. (http://www.ifpri.org/publication/delivering-genetically-engineered-crops-poor-farmers)
Now, let’s take a look at journalist Michael Murphy’s research into chemtrails, geo-engineering, and the fact that extremely high levels of aluminum and barium are found in water, snow and soil, in areas shown to have heavy chemtrail patterns (three-part video):



http://farmwars.info/?p=2927


Coincidence that Monsanto will “come to the rescue” with aluminum resistance genes because normal plants die off in the presence of excess aluminum? Or opportunistic capitalism and planned corporate food monopoly courtesy of Monsanto and the Hegelian Dialectic based on insider information that a proposed “geo-engineering” scheme is already in place that is filling our atmosphere with chemtrails containing aluminum and barium?
This is no game folks. We are being hit from all sides with a planned, homicidal, genocidal agenda to make a very few families even richer than they already are, and reduce the world’s population to 500 million as set forth in the Georgia Guidestones. This is nothing short of biological warfare.

Source:  http://farmwars.info/?p=2927

Monsanto Patents and Chemtrails

While I might assume a particular position on an issue, that position is subject to change when new or more relevant information becomes available. Remember the sorghum aluminum resistance patent that we thought was created by Monsanto to counter the effects of excess aluminum found in the soil after heavy chemtrailing? Well, it turns out that we were partially right. 
Here is where we went wrong:
The patent for aluminum resistance mentioned in What in the World are They Spraying? turns out to be owned by the USDA and Brazil’s agricultural department, not Monsanto directly (although a good case can be made for Monsanto actually owning the USDA, but that’s another story) and evidently, made for acidic soil and will not be effective in an alkaline soil caused by chemtrailing. Therefore, it appears that this particular patent most likely is targeted for Africa, which seems to be a major biotech interest.
Here is where we were right:
Monsanto DOES own patents that appear to mitigate the effects of geo-engineering, that can be applied to a whole host of fruits, trees, grains and veggies. A quick patent search brings up 3,981 hits for Monsanto and Stress Tolerance. Mendel Biotechnology is partners with Monsanto in several of these patents. This is taken from one of the joint patents:
The claimed invention, in the field of functional genomics and the characterization of plant genes for the improvement of plants, was made by or on behalf of Mendel Biotechnology, Inc. and Monsanto Corporation as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made.
Here is a patent titled “Stress tolerant plants and methods thereof,” that is owned by Monsanto, and seems to address all forms of abiotic stress that weather manipulation and chemtrails can cause:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
Described herein are inventions in the field of plant molecular biology and plant genetic engineering. In particular, DNA constructs encoding a polypeptide and transgenic plants containing the DNA constructs are provided. The transgenic plants are characterized by improved stress tolerance.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
One of the goals of plant genetic engineering is to produce plants with agronomically, horticulturally or economically important characteristics or traits. Traits of particular interest include high yield, improved quality and yield stability. The yield from a plant is greatly influenced by external environmental factors including water availability and heat, of which tolerance of extremes is in turn influenced by internal developmental factors. Enhancement of plant yield may be achieved by genetically modifying the plant to be tolerant to yield losses due to stressful environmental conditions, such as heat and drought stress.
Seed and fruit production are both limited inherently due to abiotic stress. Soybean ( Glycine max ), for instance, is a crop species that suffers from loss of seed germination during storage and fails to germinate when soil temperatures are cool (Zhang et al., Plant Soil 188: (1997)). This is also true in corn and other plants of agronomic importance. Improvement of abiotic stress tolerance in plants would be an agronomic advantage to growers allowing enhanced growth and/or germination in cold, drought, flood, heat, UV stress, ozone increases, acid rain, pollution, salt stress, heavy metals, mineralized soils, and other abiotic stresses.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7851676.html
Here are the plants that this “invention” intends to cover:
The method of claim 7, wherein said crop plant is selected from the group consisting of corn, soybean, wheat, cotton, rice and rapeseed/canola.
Further on down, we find that a whole host of other plants are under the microscope and used for the process as well:
The transgenic plant is selected from the group consisting of: Acacia , alfalfa, aneth, apple, apricot, artichoke, arugula, asparagus, avocado, banana, barley, beans, beet, blackberry, blueberry, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, canola, cantaloupe, carrot, cassaya, cauliflower, celery, cherry, cilantro, citrus, clementines, coffee, corn, cotton, cucumber, Douglas fir, eggplant, endive, escarole, eucalyptus, fennel, figs, forest tree, gourd, grape, grapefruit, honey dew, jicama, kiwifruit, lettuce, leeks, lemon, lime, loblolly pine, mango, melon, millet, mushroom, nut, oat, okra, onion, orange, papaya, parsley, pea, peach, peanut, pear, pepper, persimmon, pine, pineapple, plantain, plum, pomegranate, poplar, potato, pumpkin, quince, radiata pine, radicchio, radish, raspberry, rice, rye, sorghum, southern pine, soybean, spinach, squash, strawberry, sugarbeet, sugarcane, sunflower, sweet potato, sweetgum, tangerine, tea, tobacco, tomato, turf, a vine, watermelon, wheat, yams, and zucchini.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7851676.html
This patent is infinitely more inclusive of conditions related to chemtrail activity than the singularly applied aluminum patent as it is a relatively all-inclusive “stress tolerance” patent for everything from cold to drought to heavy metals, to salty soil that involves everything from acacia to zucchini. Monsanto to the rescue, again. And we thought the only thing we had to worry about was sorghum and aluminum. Think again…

Source:  http://farmwars.info/?p=7760

Germany Decides Genetically-Modified Foods Are Not Welcome

German chemicals giant BASF is closing its biotech division in Germany. The move was prompted by massive resistance to genetically modified food among both the public and politicians. GM opponents are jubilant, while some researchers are complaining this is another case of German hostility to technology.
Source:  http://www.care2.com/greenliving/germany-decides-genetically-modified-foods-are-not-welcome.html

MODIFIED CROPS REAP LAWSUITS, PETITIONS FROM VARIETY OF FOES

Farmers from Saskatchewan and South Dakota, Mississippi and Massachusetts lined the walls of a packed federal courtroom in Manhattan recently, as their lawyers told a judge that they were no longer able to keep genetically modified crops from their fields.
The hearing is part of a debate that is coming to life around the country, in courtrooms and Occupy sites, in boardrooms and online, with new petitions, ballot initiatives and lawsuits from California to Maine.
Last year, according to the Department of Agriculture, about 90 percent of all soybeans, corn, canola and sugar beets raised in the United States were grown from what scientists now call transgenic seed.
Most processed foods (staples like breakfast cereal, granola bars, chicken nuggets and salad dressing) contain one or more transgenic ingredients, according to estimates from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, although the labels don’t reveal that. (Some, like tortilla chips, can contain dozens.)
Common ingredients like corn, vegetable oil, maltodextrin, soy protein, lecithin, monosodium glutamate, cornstarch, yeast extract, sugar and corn syrup are almost always produced from transgenic crops.

Health risks unknown

No known health risks are associated with eating transgenic foods (although many scientists say it is too soon to assess the effects), and the Food and Drug Administration classifies them as safe.
But consumer resistance to transgenic food remains high. In a nationwide telephone poll conducted in October 2010 by Thomson Reuters and National Public Radio, 93 percent said if a food has been genetically engineered or has genetically engineered ingredients, it should say so on its label — a number that has been consistent since genetically modified crops were introduced. FDA guidelines say that food that contains genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, does not have to say so and can still be labeled “all natural.”
In California, voters in November will decide on a ballot initiative requiring the labeling of such foods.
In October, an online campaign called Just Label It began collecting signatures and comments on a petition to the FDA, requesting rules similar to those in the European Union, Japan, China, India and Australia, stating what transgenic food is in the package.

Problem of pollen drift

In traditional plant breeding, plants are bred with related organisms to encourage certain naturally occurring traits. In transgenic breeding, genetic material from unrelated organisms can be introduced to create new traits, like resistance to drought, herbicides or pests.
For the most part, the spread of transgenic seeds into the U.S. food supply has been purposeful, carried out by farmers and scientists who see enormous advantages in hardier plants.
For many in the food industry, including big players like Whole Foods, the dairy collective Organic Valley and Stonyfield Farm, the inevitability of transgenic food was cemented last year, when the Agriculture Department deregulated a new alfalfa created by Monsanto, the largest producer of genetically modified seed in the United States, despite furious lobbying by the organic industry.
Alfalfa, which has a strong tendency to drift from one field to another, is grown as feed for millions of dairy cows, making it one of the country’s largest crops. Transgenic alfalfa cannot be used to feed cows that produce organic milk. 

Farmers voice their GM wheat concerns

TWO Canadian farmers arrived in Merredin on Sunday afternoon to speak at a public meeting and share their experiences with genetically modified (GM) crops. Grains and livestock farmer Peter Eggers from Alberta and wheat farmer Matt Gehl from Saskatchewan are from the Canadian National Farmers Union (NFU) and explained to the local community why Canada rejected GM wheat in 2002 and shared their concerns about the future for wheat farmers in Australia.
Mr Eggers is one of 83 plaintiffs currently challenging the validity of agricultural technology company Monsanto’s seed patents in a US court.
He explained that many farmers in Canada were trying to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s GM seed.
He was an early adopter of GM canola but was later investigated by Monsanto for patent breaches after he decided to stop growing GM canola.
In regards to wheat, Monsanto plans to introduce GM wheat varieties but Mr Eggers said 82 per cent of the international customers said they didn’t want GM wheat.
He said it would destroy the wheat market if they were to go ahead with supplying GM wheat that had no demand.
Mr Gehl is a young fourth generation wheat farmer and is seriously concerned about the ability of his generation of farmers to have a voice in the future of agriculture.
He talked about the voice of farmers being marginalised as a consequence of increasing corporate control over agricultural research and policy.
Mr Gehl said Monsanto and other corporate companies were taking control over the whole food supply, not only of the seeds but the genes as well by using patents and courts to enforce their control by keeping the industry privatised.
Cunderdin wheat and canola farmer Ian James and Julie Newman from the Network of Concerned Farmers also discussed their concerns for GM crops in Australia.
Mr James discussed his concerns of GM crops when he found GM contamination on his farm last year.
He said GM canola from his neighbouring farm contaminated his paddock after storms and heavy rainfalls which were proof that segregation or co-existence of GM and non-GM crops was not possible.
In WA, GM wheat is an increasingly contentious issue and with GM crop trials in Merredin, the issue is very close to home.
Data shows that despite 80 per cent of overseas markets rejecting GM wheat, Australia is on the fast track to becoming the first country globally to commercialise GM wheat.
Print
Decrease Text Size

Monsanto: Found Guilty of Chemical Poisoning + 300k US Farmers Prepare Lawsuit

Recent news regarding Monsanto's activity are looking grim - to say the least. At first, we found out that USDA is forcing "Whole Foods Market" (top seller in organic foods) to embrace Monsanto's genetically engineered products, only to later discover that Monsanto's power seems limitless, after 2 FOX News Reporters found themselves jobless for investigating Monsanto's cancer-causing milk products.

Today's stories look somehow encouraging, but without further results, it may honestly be too little - too late. Monsanto is already a giant of genetically engineered seed, having 90% of the GMO market in USA. The European Union was able to successfully block Monsanto until now, but my question is 'for how long'? Probably until those voting against GMO products in the EU Parliament will begin to see personal benefits (?) in making them available in Europe.

I. Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning in France
By Marion Douet
PARIS | Mon Feb 13, 2012
(Reuters) - "A French court on Monday declared U.S. biotech giant Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning of a French farmer, a judgment that could lend weight to other health claims against pesticides.
In the first such case heard in court in France, grain grower Paul Francois says he suffered neurological problems including memory loss, headaches and stammering after inhaling Monsanto's Lasso weedkiller in 2004.
He blames the agri-business giant for not providing adequate warnings on the product label.
The ruling was given by a court in Lyon, southeast France, which ordered an expert opinion of Francois's losses to establish the sum of damages.
Lawyers for Monsanto could not immediately be reached for comment.
Previous health claims from farmers have foundered because of the difficulty of establishing clear links between illnesses and exposure to pesticides.
"I am alive today, but part of the farming population is going to be sacrificed and is going to die because of this," Francois, 47, told Reuters.
He and other farmers suffering from illness set up an association last year to make a case that their health problems should be linked to their use of crop protection products.
The agricultural branch of the French social security system says that since 1996, it has gathered farmers' reports of sickness potentially related to pesticides, with about 200 alerts a year.



But only about 47 cases have been recognised as due to pesticides in the past 10 years. Francois, who suffers from neurological problems, obtained work invalidity status only after a court appeal.
LESS INTENSIVE NOW
The Francois case goes back to a period of intensive use of crop-protection chemicals in the European Union. The EU and its member countries have since banned a large number of substances considered dangerous.
Monsanto's Lasso was banned in France in 2007 following an EU directive after the product had already been withdrawn in some other countries.
France, the EU's largest agricultural producer, is now targetting a 50 percent reduction in pesticide use between 2008 and 2018, with initial results showing a 4 percent cut in farm and non-farm use in 2008-2010.
The Francois claim may be easier to argue than others because he can pinpoint a specific incident - inhaling the Lasso when cleaning the tank of his crop sprayer - whereas fellow farmers are trying to show accumulated effects from various products.
"It's like lying on a bed of thorns and trying to say which one cut you," said a farmer, who has recovered from prostate cancer and asked not to be named.
The French association of crop protection companies, UIPP, says pesticides are all subject to testing and that any evidence of a cancer risk in humans leads to withdrawal of productsfrom the market.
"I think if we had a major health problem with pesticides, we would have already known about it," Jean-Charles Bocquet, UIPP's managing director, said.
The social security's farming branch this year is due to add Parkinson's disease to its list of conditions related to pesticide use after already recognising some cases of blood cancers and bladder and respiratory problems.
France's health and environment safety agency (ANSES), meanwhile, is conducting a study on farmers' health, with results expected next year."
(Writing by Gus Trompiz; Editing by Muriel Boselli, Sybille de La Hamaide and Jane Baird)

II. 300,000 farmers hope for lawsuit against Monsanto

(RT News) - "Around 300,000 organic farmers think that Monsanto, the biotech giant known for genetically modifying Mother Nature’s handwork for profit and pushing over the little guys all the while, is pretty seedy.
Now a judge in New York is debating if Monsanto’s questionable methods will go before a jury.
Judge Naomi Buchwald of the Southern District Court of New York says she will have a decision on March 31 in regards to whether a lawsuit waged against the mega-corporation Monsanto should make it to trial.
Last year, 270,000 organic farmers from around 60 family farms tried to take Monsanto to court over issues pertaining to a genetically-modified seed masterminded by the corporation. Not only were the smaller farms concerned over how the manufactured seeds had been carried by wind and creature alike onto their own plantations, but the biggest problem perhaps was that Monsanto was filing lawsuits themselves against farmers.
Monsanto went after hundreds of farmers for infringing on their patented seed after audits revealed that their farms had contained their product — as a result of routine pollination by animals and acts of nature. Unable to afford a proper defense, competing small farms have been bought out by the company in droves. As a result, Monsanto saw their profits increase by the hundreds of millions over the last few years as a result. Between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto tackled 144 organic farms with lawsuits and investigated roughly 500 plantations annually during that span with a so-called “seed police.”
Farmers have been concerned that unless Monsanto is stopped, their reign over the world’s agriculture will surpass anything imaginable. They are seeking pre-emptive protection from those questionable lawsuits and next month Judge Buchwald will weigh in on if the matter should go to trial.
 

UPDATE 3-Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning in France


* Case against Monsanto 1st such claim to reach French court
    * Monsanto lawyer says "disappointed", envisages appeal
    * Pesticide makers see no evidence of major health risk


    By Catherine Lagrange and Marion Douet 
    LYON/PARIS, Feb 13 (Reuters) - A French court on
Monday declared U.S. biotech giant Monsanto guilty of
chemical poisoning of a French farmer, a judgment that could
lend weight to other health claims against pesticides. 
    In the first such case heard in court in France, grain
grower Paul Francois, 47, says he suffered neurological problems
including memory loss, headaches and stammering after inhaling
Monsanto's Lasso weedkiller in 2004. 
    He blames the agri-business giant for not providing adequate
warnings on the product label.  
    The ruling was given by a court in Lyon, southeast France,
which ordered an expert opinion of Francois's losses to
establish the amount of damages. 
    "It is a historic decision in so far as it is the first time
that a (pesticide) maker is found guilty of such a poisoning,"
François Lafforgue, Francois's lawyer, told Reuters. 
    Monsanto said it was disappointed by the ruling and would
examine whether to appeal the judgment. 
    "Monsanto always considered that there were not sufficient
elements to establish a causal relationship between Paul
Francois's symptoms and a potential poisoning," the company's
lawyer, Jean-Philippe Delsart, said. 
    Previous health claims from farmers have foundered because
of the difficulty of establishing clear links between illnesses
and exposure to pesticides. 
    Francois and other farmers suffering from illness set up an
association last year to make a case that their health problems
should be linked to their use of crop protection products. 
    The agricultural branch of the French social security system
says that since 1996, it has gathered farmers' reports of
sickness potentially related to pesticides, with about 200
alerts a year. 
    But only about 47 cases have been recognised as due to
pesticides in the past 10 years. Francois, who suffers from
neurological problems, obtained work invalidity status only
after a court appeal. 
     
    LESS INTENSIVE NOW 
    The Francois case goes back to a period of intensive use of
crop-protection chemicals in the European Union. The EU and its
member countries have since banned a large number of substances
considered dangerous.   
    Lasso, a pre-emergent soil-applied herbicide that has been
used since the 1960s to control grasses and broadleaf weeds in
farm fields, was banned in France in 2007 following an EU
directive after the product had already been withdrawn in some
other countries.  
    Though it once was a top-selling herbicide, it has gradually
lost popularity, and critics say several studies have shown
links to a range of health problems. 
    Monsanto's Roundup is now the dominant herbicide used to
kill weeds. The company markets it in conjunction with its
biotech herbicide-tolerant "Roundup Ready" crops. The Roundup
Ready corn, soybeans, cotton and other crops do not die when
sprayed directly with the herbicide, a trait that has made them
wildly popular with U.S. farmers. 
    But farmers are now being encouraged to use more and
different kinds of chemicals again as Roundup loses its
effectiveness to a rise of "super weeds" that are resistant to
Roundup. 
    And while the risks of pesticide are a generally known and
accepted hazard of farming in most places, and farmers are
cautioned to take care when handling the chemicals, increased
use of pesticides will only cause more harm to human health and
the environment, critic say.  
    "The registration process does not protect against harm.
Manufacturers have to be held liable for adverse impacts that
occur," said Jay Feldman, director of Beyond Pesticides, a
non-profit group focused on reducing pesticide use. 
    France, the EU's largest agricultural producer, is now
targetting a 50 percent reduction in pesticide use between 2008
and 2018, with initial results showing a 4 percent cut in farm
and non-farm use in 2008-2010. 
    The Francois claim may be easier to argue than others
because he can pinpoint a specific incident - inhaling the Lasso
when cleaning the tank of his crop sprayer - whereas fellow
farmers are trying to show accumulated effects from various
products. 
    "It's like lying on a bed of thorns and trying to say which
one cut you," said a farmer, who has recovered from prostate
cancer and asked not to be named. 
    The French association of crop protection companies, UIPP,
says pesticides are all subject to testing and that any evidence
of a cancer risk in humans leads to withdrawal of products from
the market. 
    "I think if we had a major health problem with pesticides,
we would have already known about it," Jean-Charles Bocquet,
UIPP's managing director, said. 
    The social security's farming branch this year is due to add
Parkinson's disease to its list of conditions related to
pesticide use after already recognising some cases of blood
cancers and bladder and respiratory problems. 
    France's health and environment safety agency (ANSES),
meanwhile, is conducting a study on farmers' health, with
results expected next year.
 
Source:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/france-pesticides-monsanto-idUSL2E8DDE4U20120213

Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?

The pesticide industry and EU regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s-1990s that Roundup, the world’s best selling herbicide, causes birth defects – but they failed to inform the public.
This report, co-authored by international scientists and researchers, reveals that industry’s own studies (including one commissioned by Monsanto) showed as long ago as the 1980s that Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate causes birth defects in laboratory animals.The facts are these:
  • Industry has known from its own studies since the 1980s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses
  • Industry has known since 1993 that these effects also occur at lower and mid doses
  • The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations
  • The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations
  • The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year it signed off on the current approval of glyphosate.
But this information was not made public. On the contrary, the pesticide industry and Europe’s regulators have jointly misled the public with claims that glyphosate is safe. As a result, Roundup is used by home gardeners and local authorities on roadsides, in school grounds, and in other public areas, as well as in farmers’ fields.
As recently as 2010, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, BVL, told the Commission there was “no evidence of teratogenicity” (ability to cause birth defects) for glyphosate.
BVL made this comment in its rebuttal of an independent scientific study by Argentine scientists which showed that Roundup and glyphosate cause birth defects in experimental animals at concentrations much lower than those used in agricultural spraying. The study was prompted by reports of high rates of birth defects and cancers in areas of South America growing genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready soy, which is engineered to tolerate being sprayed liberally with glyphosate herbicide.
In its rebuttal of the Argentine study, BVL cited as proof of glyphosate’s safety the industry studies submitted for the Commission’s 2002 approval of glyphosate (the approval that is currently in force in Europe).
But the authors of the new report obtained the approval documents and found that contrary to BVL’s claim, industry’s own studies, conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, showed that glyphosate/Roundup causes birth defects in experimental animals.

Source:  http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2012/02/18/roundup-and-birth-defects-is-the-public-being-kept-in-the-dark/

Monday, February 20, 2012

California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act of 2012

 On Feb. 18, 2012, California voters will be able to sign a petition to place this highly charged issue on the ballot. Once 560,000 signatures are collected between February and April, 2012, this measure goes mainstream and onto the November ballot in the form of the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.

I spoke with Pamm Larry a week before the signature gathering period begins.
You are the original instigator and the Northern California organizer of the Label GMOs campaign.What made you courageous enough to take on Monsanto and the other biotechnology companies?

I don't feel like I'm taking on Monsanto or the others. I'm simply taking a strong stand for our right to know what's in our food. I woke up to the knowing that it was time for me to do more than whine and be depressed about our food situation. I've since come to believe that I'm so glad I let go of the belief that it was someone else's job to get this done. If I care, it's mine. It's been a quite the eye opener.
Had you been politically active in the past, and how painful was the application process for a ballot initiative?

I've always been politically aware, but this it the first time I've done any organizing. The actual paperwork of forming the committee was easy. The part about writing it was an amazing process to witness... and I need to be infinitely clear that I did not write this. Lawyers, politicians, scientists, processors, farmers all came together. No one, least of all me, would have wanted me to write this. It was a labor of love that these folks devoted themselves to and I am so grateful to them!


Who came on board next to help?
The Organic Consumers Association (www.OCA.com) came on board. Ronnie Cummins, Alexis Baden-Mayer and the rest of the team were right there from the beginning and have continued to be a driving force for truth telling in the organic industry and keeping the grassroots strong. I admire them immensely. Jeffrey Smith and the Institute for Responsible Technology www.responsibletechnology.org) helped out at a crucial point in our grassroots building. Because they were willing to put out the word to their members to help me get meetings in communities, labelgmos.org (www.labelgmos.org), the original grassroots effort, grew exponentially in a very short time.

I commend Stacey Hall, who helped organize and support the leaders in the south, and the over 100 leaders around the state who believed in this long before anyone else did. They are volunteering 20-40 hours a week to see this gets on the ballot and then voted on come November. Then there's another hero; our webmaster, who has created an amazing site on no budget to speak of.

Are you surprised by how many Americans don't know what a GMO is?

Yes. I believe it's been a very well orchestrated program of silence. I've been an avid organic fan for decades and I hadn't even heard about GMO's until about 8 years ago. I find many in the same place. Amazing to me, especially since it's a huge subject once you start down the rabbit hole.

How can we best educate the public on this issue?
I believe this will be won on the streets, one by one, with us talking to our communities, looking in each others eyes. That's how it began. We need to talk about it with each other. We need to spread the word and invite folks to learn more- read articles, watch films. We've got to wake up to what's happening to our food supply and take back our food sovereignty. I recently learned that the California Medical Association has a resolution in support of labeling Genetically Engineered foods. If the doctors think it a good idea... well... that's sure something yes?


What do we need to have this initiative pass?
First we need to get it on the ballot. That requires 560,000 qualifying signatures. We have the services of a signature gathering professional to lead that drive and all are confident that we'll get there. Please visit www.labelgmos.org and volunteer to help us gather signatures. Come to a one hour training workshop and then hit the streets with your neighbors!

Then we need to educate folks about the issue. They have a right to know that they are innocently and blindly feeding their children; foods developed, then grown, via a genetically engineered process that has not had any long term testing on humans and that has increased the use of pesticides and herbicides.

Which companies are backing the labeling campaign?

David Bronner, of Dr. Bronner's Magical Soaps (www.drbronner.com) decided to get involved. His passion and commitment just blows me away. He is the reason large companies and the various NGO's finally decided to give this a second look. Without him, this initiative would not be where it is today. Because of him, the Center For Food Safety (www.centerforfoodsafety.org) became involved in writing the initiative. The folks who wrote the actual law did an incredible job. Food Democracy Now (Fooddemocracynow.org) brought its expertise in grassroots support of farmers.

Mercola.com, Nature's Path, Lundberg Farms have all invested time and financial support in moving this initiative forward. Straus Dairy has been amazingly supportive in many ways. (One of which is hooking us up with their rocking ice cream whenever we ask!!) And now our coalition is growing to include other endorsers and supporters of varying involvement. Frey Vineyards, Nutiva, Guayaki, Amy's, Organic Pastures and UNFI have also been supportive. There are others you can find on Labelgmos.org.

What will be the talking points of the opposition?

1. "We have been doing this for thousands of years."
Answer: NOT true. This is not about hybrids or selective breeding. The initiative is clear in its definition of what a genetically engineered food is. It is where they take the DNA or RNA of one animal, plant, yeast, etc, and put it in another animal, plant, yeast, etc. It cannot happen in nature. For instance, in nature, a fish and a tomato do not breed and reproduce a new entity.

2. "What about feeding the world?"
Answer: First off genetically engineered foods are not feeding the world. There are books on the subject. The UN and the University of Davis both came out with studies last year stating that the way to feed the world is NOT via corporate monoculture agribusiness; it's through agroecology (the application of ecological principles in farming). But even though the 'feeding the world' thing is a great PR myth, at the end of the day, what does feeding starving children in Africa have to do with labeling GE foods in California? Nothing. It's a different subject that's used to confuse people.

3. "Food costs will go up."
Answer: NOT true. Companies change their labels all the time. There is a phase in period where all companies could easily incorporate this change into the design, too. Did everyone notice a jump in prices when they started labeling trans fats? No. Same thing here. There is no cost to the state. To say otherwise is a blatant diversion and misrepresentation or the person has not read the language of the law.

4. "The government (FDA) says we don't need labeling of GMOS because they are the same as non GMO."
Answer- NOT TRUE. They are using 14th century science with that policy: if it looks the same and (in general) smells the same, it must be the same. We are asking the FDA to use 21st Century science.

What have you learned from this that you can pass on to other citizens wanting to get a measure on a state ballot?
Just start. I've learned that if we wait for someone else to do it, it won't get done. I had no idea where this would end up. I still don't. If I had waited for funding to start, this would not exist. If I waited for others to agree with me, I would have stopped after a month. While I believe "experts" and "professionals" are vital to everything in life, if I had listened to them carte blanche, this initiative would not be where it is today.

I simply "knew" this was right, knew I could not stop, and kept on going. I let go of the outcome and continue to, knowing that I've done all I could to make it happen. The rest isn't up to me. I believe this is happening because it's time. It simply needed a tenacious, focused spark and a commitment to keep on going no matter what.

Fundraising. How much is needed and where can "people who like to eat" send donations?
The coalition is gearing up for a very large sum as initiatives are very expensive. You can donate to the coalition effort at http://www.carighttoknow.org. Labelgmos.org will continue to raise monies independently as the original grassroots effort and member of that coalition. Our primary need for funds is for printed materials and film rights to educate the public about GMOs. You can donate on our site at www.labelgmos.org.

 Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/annie-spiegelman/genetically-engineered-food_b_1245023.html

Friday, February 17, 2012

Banning GMOs from Boulder

In the fairytale Jack and the Beanstalk, Jack sells everything he owns — one cow — for a handful of magic beans. It works out for Jack. He takes on the Giant, wins, and returns home to a happy mother (though she may not send him to market again responsible for the sale of their only livestock).

The story that unfolds in the documentary Bitter Seeds, featured at the Boulder International Film Festival, is about farmers who wager it all on what are promised to be miracle seeds, but land dust and failed crops rather than a magic bean pole. Their ending is far more grim.

A quarter of a million farmers in India have committed suicide in the last 16 years, according to Bitter Seeds. This equates to one farmer killing himself every 30 minutes, all because the miracle cotton seeds they were sold with the promise they would increase yield drove them into debt and failed to produce an ample return. In this tale, the giant they faced is GMO seed producer Monsanto, and they lost.

Historically, Indian farmers have cultivated their own seeds each year. However, when genetically modified seeds were introduced into the market after the World Trade Organization forced India to open its doors to foreign seed companies, things changed. According to Bitter Seeds, directed by Micha X. Peled, Indian farmers were told that, although the seeds are exorbitantly priced, they would produce double the farmers’ normal yield and resist pests. The farmers were not told that the seeds required large amounts of water rarely found in India.

Farmers sought loans from the bank or, when that option failed, signed over their land for a loan from illegal moneylenders who charge extremely high interest rates. They were left relying heavily on a high yield of crops in order to keep their land, and when the crop failed, as it so often did because of lack of water, the farmers had nothing to keep them going.

The film is included in BIFF’s Call 2 Action program, which aims to bring global issues home with local action points, and will be introduced by Mary VonBreck, the campaign manager of GMO Free Boulder. An informational discussion, hosted by the director and GMO Free Boulder, will be held after the film.

“This is a heartbreaking film,” VonBreck says. “When I saw it, I knew this was such an important issue to raise awareness on. I knew we were doing important work.”

There are three parts to the call to action, VonBreck says. First, the group wants citizens to be very vocal at their grocery stores by asking what foods contain GMOs. The belief is that vocalization of these concerns will lead to the second part, which is labeling foods that contain GMOs.

“The first two come under something consumers can use to take a stand on the human rights issues behind GMOs,” VonBreck says. “I mean, how can you boycott something if it isn’t labeled?” The final part of the call to action is banning GMOs from Boulder.

“Monsanto has already started pulling out of Europe because they have labeling for their GMOs,” VonBreck says. “The labeling makes it so no one buys their products, so there isn’t a market over there. It is time for us to do the same. We have got to push it through.”

Mark Retzloff, co-founder of Alfalfa’s, is joining the call to action with a new program in his store that will identify which products could have GMOs.

“[Labeling] is absolutely the right thing for people to be doing,” Retzloff says. “When you have surveys that show 85 to 90 percent of people want their products labeled, then retailers need to listen. Alfalfa’s wants to see that done.”

“Here is a documentary that shows what is really happening because of GMOs,” VonBreck says. “It is time to make a stand against them.”

Bitter Seeds will be shown at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, Feb. 17 at the Boulder Theater. The informational session will be held after the film in a tent on Pearl Street Mall in front of the County Courthouse.

“Boulder is special because we have a very proactive community, and we don’t want GMOs,” Retzloff says. “What we do is something other people in the country could do. Our actions could set an example for others.”

Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com
Source: Boulder Weekly

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Monsanto blocks research on GMO safety

Soybeans, corn, cotton and canola — most of the acres planted in these crops in the United States are genetically altered. “Transgenic” seeds can save farmers time and reduce the use of some insecticides, but herbicide use is higher, and respected experts argue that some genetically engineered crops may also pose serious health and environmental risks. Also, the benefits of genetically engineered crops may be overstated.

We don’t have the complete picture. That’s no accident. Multibillion-dollar agricultural corporations, including Monsanto and Syngenta, have restricted independent research on their genetically engineered crops. They have often refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they’ve set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options.

When Monsanto won a Supreme Court case last year allowing deregulation of their GMO Alfalfa, David Snively, Monsanto’s senior vice president and general counsel, called the decision “important for every American farmer, not just alfalfa growers.”

Source: Red Green & Blue (http://s.tt/12zOy)

Willie Nelson and 300,000 Other Activists Sue Monsanto

Little did Willie Nelson know when he recorded "Crazy" years ago just how crazy it would become for our cherished family farmers in America. Nelson, President of Farm Aid, has recently called for the national Occupy movement to declare an "Occupy the Food System" action.  Nelson states, "Corporate control of our food system has led to the loss of millions of family farmers, destruction of our soil…

Nelson states, "Corporate control of our food system has led to the loss of millions of family farmers, destruction of our soil…"

Hundreds of citizens, (even including NYC chefs in their white chef hats) joined Occupy the Food System groups, ie Food Democracy Now, gathered outside the Federal Courts in Manhattan on January 31st, to support organic family farmers in their landmark lawsuit against Big Agribusiness giant Monsanto. (Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association v. Monsanto) Oral arguments were heard that day concerning the lawsuit by 83 plaintiffs representing over 300,000 organic farmers, organic seed growers, and organic seed businesses.

The lawsuit addresses the bizarre and shocking issue of Monsanto harassing and threatening organic farmers with lawsuits of "patent infringement" if any organic farmer ends up with any trace amount of GM seeds on their organic farmland.

Judge Naomi Buckwald heard the oral arguments on Monsanto’s Motion to Dismiss, and the legal team from Public Patent Foundation represented the rights of American organic farmers against Monsanto, maker of GM seeds, [and additionally, Agent Orange, dioxin, etc.]
After hearing the arguments, Judge Buckwald stated that on March 31st she will hand down her decision on whether the lawsuit will move forward to trial.

Physicians calling for a moratorium on GM foods

On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”

They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.

They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”
Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[2]

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9]

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.