Genetically Modified (GM) Foods

[accuracy]

Please post articles of the topic here.-accuracy

Obama's Latest Sellout -
GM Biotech 'Yes Men'

By Jeffrey Smith
11-30-8

Biotech "Yes Men" on Obama's team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic "group think" that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations--where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology.

Clinton's agriculture secretary Dan Glickman saw it first hand:

"It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"

When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he "got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration."

By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist.

· The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data show that the opposite is true.
· We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average reduction in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers.
· George H. W. Bush fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants.
· Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigious International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger.

Food Safety Lies

Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA's 1992 GMO policy, which stated:

"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."

The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists that GM foods were substantially different, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public.

Their concerns stayed hidden until 1999, when 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports were made public due to a lawsuit. According to public interest attorney Stephen Druker, the documents showed how their warnings and "references to the unintended negative effects" of genetic engineering "were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement," in spite of scientists' protests.

"What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?" wrote FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the policy. "It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."

Who flooded the market with dangerous GMOs

Thanks to the FDA's "promote biotech" policy, perilously few safety studies and investigations have been conducted on GMOs. Those that have, including two government studies from Austria and Italy published just last month, demonstrate that the concerns by FDA scientists should have been heeded. GMOs have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions in humans, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. GMOs are unsafe.

At the highest level, the responsibility for this disregard of science and consumer safety lies with the first Bush White House, which had ordered the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry and get GM foods on the market quickly. To accomplish this White House directive, the FDA created a position for Michael Taylor. As the FDA's new Deputy Commissioner of Policy, he oversaw the creation of GMO policy.

Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC.

Michael Taylor is on the Obama transition team.

Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk

Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1--a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/www.YourMilkonDrugs.com
www.YourMilkonDrugs.com.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling.

As more and more consumers here learn about the health risks of the drug, they shift their purchases to brands that voluntarily label their products as not using rbGH. Consumer rejection of rbGH hit a tipping point a couple of years ago, and since then it has been kicked out of milk from Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Subway, and at least 40 of the top 100 dairies. In 2007, Monsanto desperately tried to reverse the trend by asking the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as free from rbGH. Both agencies flatly refused the company's request.

But Monsanto turned to an ally, Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. Wolff used his position to single-handedly declare rbGH-free labels illegal in his state. Such a policy would make it impossible for national dairy brands to declare their products rbGH-free, since they couldn't change packaging just for Pennsylvania. Wolff's audacious move so infuriated citizens around the nation, the outpouring caused the governor to step in and stop the prohibition before it took effect.

Dennis Wolff, according to unbossed.com, is being considered for Obama's USDA Secretary.

Although Pennsylvania did not ultimately ban rbGH-free labels, they did decide to require companies who use the labels to also include a disclaimer sentence on the package, stating that the according to the FDA there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rbGH and those not treated. In reality, this sentence contradicts the FDA's own scientists. (Is this sounding all too familiar?) Even according to Monsanto's own studies, milk from treated cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and IGF-1. Blatantly ignoring the data, a top FDA bureaucrat wrote a "white paper" urging companies that labeled products as rbGH-free to also use that disclaimer on their packaging. The bureaucrat was Michael Taylor.

Betting on biotech is "Bad-idea virus"

For several years, politicians around the US were offering money and tax-breaks to bring biotech companies into their city or state. But according to Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a 2004 report on this trend, "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable. This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials."
One politician who caught a bad case of the bad-idea virus was Tom Vilsack, Iowa's governor from 1998-2006. He was co-creator and chair of the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year.

Tom Vilsack was considered a front runner for Obama's USDA secretary. Perhaps the outcry prompted by Vilsack's biotech connections was the reason for his name being withdrawn.

Change, Truth, Hope

I don't know Barack Obama's position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, "Obama, like Bush, may be Ag biotech ally", there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist's full court spin.

- His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000. - [Obama] said biotech crops "have provided enormous benence "that we can continue to modify plants safely."

On the other hand, Obama may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants "stringent tests for environmental and health effects" and "stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice."

There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors.

President Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.

Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration.

(I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.)

Please
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/TakeAction/MandatoryLabelingPetitiontoObama/index.cfm
sign a petition asking President Obama to make his GMO labeling plan comprehensive and meaningful.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/obamas-team-includes-dang_b_147188.html

[devotional soul]

Signed the petition and passing it on, thanks!

This makes sense...food from sterile seeds causes infertility...and we know they want depopulation.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15588.cfm

New Study Confirms Genetically Engineered Food Damages Fertility
GM Watch (EU), November 12, 2008
Straight to the Source

1. New study confirms GM food damages fertility - GM Free Cymru
2. Austrian study shows GM corn negatively affects reproductive health in mice - Austrian Agency for Health and Food
3. Monsanto's statement on safety allegations related to transgenic maize NK603 X MON 810
--- ---
1. New study confirms that GM food damages fertility
GM Free Cymru, 12 November 2008

In a new Austrian study that will send shock waves through the corridors of power in the EU, and through the offices of the GM corporations, it has been discovered that GM corn has a damaging effect upon the reproductive system (1).

The work was done at the request of the Austrian Health Ministry, and the results were presented yesterday by Professor Jurgen Zentek and his team to an expert conference organized by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety. The work was done at the University of Vienna, using a GM maize hybrid line called NK603 x MON810, which has two copies of the RR gene in it, each copy with its own, different promoter sequence, as well as the MON810 gene. In one of the very few long-term nutrition studies conducted so far with an approved GM product (2), it became apparent over a period of 20 weeks that the fertility of GM corn fed mice was seriously impaired, with fewer offspring than mice fed on non-GM equivalent material. In a multi-generational trial, mice fed with GM maize had fewer offspring in the third and fourth generations, and this difference was statistically significant. Mice fed with GM-free corn reproduced more rapidly. In a series of carefully-controlled trials, it was also discovered that there was a statistically significant decrease in litter weight in the third and fourth litters of mice in the GM-fed group as compared to the control group.

Although the Austrian authorities have announced the findings in a somewhat cautious fashion, stressing the urgent need for "further studies", the implications of the work are immediate and far-reaching. Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "This work will do huge damage to the GM industry worldwide, since it shows that a crop -- Monsanto's maize line NK603 x MON810 -- which has been approved as safe by EFSA, and given consent for use in food and feed by the EC, is in fact dangerous to health. It demonstrates that the approvals process is at best inadequate and at worst corrupt. This is what NGOs have been saying for years (3). At the same time this work effectively confirms the findings of Irina Ermakova in 2005, who found that rats fed on a diet including GM soya produced offspring which were weak and which had a much higher mortality rate than rats fed on a non-GM diet (4). She also found that when both male and female animals were fed on GM soy they became effectively sterile and produced no offspring. Her work was heavily criticised in a despicable publishing scam by a GM industry which fully appreciated its importance (5). However, there has always been a suspicion that ALL soya damages reproductive function (6). That is why this new work -- based upon GM maize rather than GM soy -- is of such massive importance."

The Monsanto maize line MON863 has already been shown -- in the company's own experiments designed to mask health effects -- to damage the internal organs of animals in feeding trials (7). This new evidence, from an EU government-sponsored study, shows that the standard mantra that "GM does not damage health" is shown to be a lie. GM food and feed DOES damage health in a number of ways, as this and other reliable studies have shown over the past decade, beginning with Arpad Pusztai in 1998 (8).

GM Free Cymru has now written to Environment Secretary Hilary Benn challenging him to revise his recent statement (9) that "the scientific evidence clearly demonstrates the safety of GM foods." The NGO has accused him -- and his advisory committees -- of promoting "a culture of complacency" relating to GM food safety, and of implying that the GM health debate is over and done with. The letter (10) says: "You and your advisers have consistently shown a patronising and dismissive attitude towards independent researchers who have shown that animals fed on GM foods are harmed. You have systematically ignored their results which show -- over and again -- that GM materials cause cellular and tissue damage. Will you now revise your opinion that the GM / health debate is over, and demonstrate that you are prepared to put the health of UK consumers above the commercial interests of the GM corporations?"

[accuracy]

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=A1TOss9Mslw&feature=related

[i_am]

The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

[accuracy]

Signed the petition and passing it on, thanks!

This makes sense...food from sterile seeds causes infertility...and we know they want depopulation.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15588.cfm

New Study Confirms Genetically Engineered Food Damages Fertility
GM Watch (EU), November 12, 2008
Straight to the Source

1. New study confirms GM food damages fertility - GM Free Cymru
2. Austrian study shows GM corn negatively affects reproductive health in mice - Austrian Agency for Health and Food
3. Monsanto's statement on safety allegations related to transgenic maize NK603 X MON 810
--- ---
1. New study confirms that GM food damages fertility
GM Free Cymru, 12 November 2008

In a new Austrian study that will send shock waves through the corridors of power in the EU, and through the offices of the GM corporations, it has been discovered that GM corn has a damaging effect upon the reproductive system (1).

The work was done at the request of the Austrian Health Ministry, and the results were presented yesterday by Professor Jurgen Zentek and his team to an expert conference organized by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety. The work was done at the University of Vienna, using a GM maize hybrid line called NK603 x MON810, which has two copies of the RR gene in it, each copy with its own, different promoter sequence, as well as the MON810 gene. In one of the very few long-term nutrition studies conducted so far with an approved GM product (2), it became apparent over a period of 20 weeks that the fertility of GM corn fed mice was seriously impaired, with fewer offspring than mice fed on non-GM equivalent material. In a multi-generational trial, mice fed with GM maize had fewer offspring in the third and fourth generations, and this difference was statistically significant. Mice fed with GM-free corn reproduced more rapidly. In a series of carefully-controlled trials, it was also discovered that there was a statistically significant decrease in litter weight in the third and fourth litters of mice in the GM-fed group as compared to the control group.

Although the Austrian authorities have announced the findings in a somewhat cautious fashion, stressing the urgent need for "further studies", the implications of the work are immediate and far-reaching. Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "This work will do huge damage to the GM industry worldwide, since it shows that a crop -- Monsanto's maize line NK603 x MON810 -- which has been approved as safe by EFSA, and given consent for use in food and feed by the EC, is in fact dangerous to health. It demonstrates that the approvals process is at best inadequate and at worst corrupt. This is what NGOs have been saying for years (3). At the same time this work effectively confirms the findings of Irina Ermakova in 2005, who found that rats fed on a diet including GM soya produced offspring which were weak and which had a much higher mortality rate than rats fed on a non-GM diet (4). She also found that when both male and female animals were fed on GM soy they became effectively sterile and produced no offspring. Her work was heavily criticised in a despicable publishing scam by a GM industry which fully appreciated its importance (5). However, there has always been a suspicion that ALL soya damages reproductive function (6). That is why this new work -- based upon GM maize rather than GM soy -- is of such massive importance."

The Monsanto maize line MON863 has already been shown -- in the company's own experiments designed to mask health effects -- to damage the internal organs of animals in feeding trials (7). This new evidence, from an EU government-sponsored study, shows that the standard mantra that "GM does not damage health" is shown to be a lie. GM food and feed DOES damage health in a number of ways, as this and other reliable studies have shown over the past decade, beginning with Arpad Pusztai in 1998 (8).

GM Free Cymru has now written to Environment Secretary Hilary Benn challenging him to revise his recent statement (9) that "the scientific evidence clearly demonstrates the safety of GM foods." The NGO has accused him -- and his advisory committees -- of promoting "a culture of complacency" relating to GM food safety, and of implying that the GM health debate is over and done with. The letter (10) says: "You and your advisers have consistently shown a patronising and dismissive attitude towards independent researchers who have shown that animals fed on GM foods are harmed. You have systematically ignored their results which show -- over and again -- that GM materials cause cellular and tissue damage. Will you now revise your opinion that the GM / health debate is over, and demonstrate that you are prepared to put the health of UK consumers above the commercial interests of the GM corporations?"

Done!

Ecellent site if i may say so.

[i_am]

GM crops cause 'breakdown' in Indian farming systems

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/gm-crops-cause-breakdown-in-indian-farming-systems-441790.html

[i_am]

Mass Protests against GM Crops in India

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gmProtestsIndia.php

[i_am]

The Silent War on the People of India

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/03/22/the_silent_war_on_the_people_of_india

[accuracy]

The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html


Read this article in the local rag, but thanks for the link :)

[accuracy]

Genetically Modified Food or Organic: Do We Have to Choose?


Youtube video 59.08 min

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=OzpFaBiZUuE

[devotional soul]

http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m47991&hd=&size=1&l=e

Mutant Seeds for Mesopotamia
by Andrew Bosworth, Ph.D.
October 15, 2008

One would think that Iraqi farmers, now prospering under "freedom" and "democracy," would be able to plant the seeds of their choosing, but that choice, under little-known Order 81, would be illegal.

But first, it is important to set the context. Most people have never heard of the infamous "100 Orders," but they help explain why the majority of Iraqis remain opposed to foreign occupation. The 100 Orders allow multinational corporations to basically privatize an entire nation, and this degree of foreign and private control has not been witnessed since the days of the British East India Company and its extraterritoriality treaties.

A few examples of the 100 Orders are illuminating:

* Order 39 allows for the tax-free remittance of all corporate profits.
*
Order 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, immunity from Iraq's laws.
*
Orders 57 and 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector general in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations. (1)

Back to one of the most blatant orders of all: Order 81. Under this mandate, Iraq's commercial farmers must now buy "registered seeds." These are normally imported by Monsanto, Cargill and the World Wide Wheat Company. Unfortunately, these registered seeds are "terminator" seeds, meaning "sterile." Imagine if all human men were infertile, and in order to reproduce women needed to buy sperm cells at a sperm bank. In agricultural terms, terminator seeds represent the same kind of sterility.

Terminator seeds have no agricultural value other than creating corporate monopolies. The Sierra Club, more of a mainstream "conservation" organization than a radical "environmentalist" one, makes the exact same case:

"This technology would protect the intellectual property interests of the seed company by making the seeds from a genetically engineered crop plant sterile, unable to germinate. Terminator would make it impossible for farmers to save seed from a crop for planting the next year, and would force them to buy seed from the supplier. In the third world, this inability to save seed could be a major, perhaps fatal, burden on poor farmers." (2)

What makes this Order 81 even more outrageous is that Iraqi farmers have been saving wheat and barley seeds since at least 4000 BC, when irrigated agriculture first emerged, and probably even to about 8000 BC, when wheat was first domesticated. Mesopotamia's farmers have now been trumped by white-smocked, corporate bio-engineers from Florida who strive to replace hundreds of natural varieties with a handful of genetically scrambled hybrids.

Where does such hubris come from? It comes from the entire mission surrounding the invasion of Iraq, which, upon closer inspection, had been planned years in advance by a faction of "neo-cons" who adopted Leon Trotsky's glorification of the state, his theory "permanent revolution," and his goal of exporting revolution worldwide. The neo-con revolution aims to alter the economic, political and cultural foundations of nations on the other side of the planet (rejecting old-fashioned notions of self-determination, popular sovereignty and even the nation-state system). This mission includes the transformation of agriculture and the establishment of "food control" over local populations.

Order 81 fits into this revolutionary program, and it is quite diabolical upon closer inspection. First, it forces Iraq's commercial farmers to use registered terminator seeds (the "protected variety"). Then it defines natural seeds as illegal (the "infringing variety"), in a classic Orwellian turn of language.

This is so incredible that it must be re-stated: the exotic genetically scrambled seeds are the "protected variety" and the indigenous seeds are the "infringing variety."

As Jeffrey Smith explains, author of Order 81: Re-Engineering Iraqi Agriculture:

"To qualify for PVP [Plant Variety Protection], seeds have to meet the following criteria: they must be 'new, distinct, uniform and stable'... it is impossible for the seeds developed by the people of Iraq to meet these criteria. Their seeds are not 'new' as they are the product of millennia of development. Nor are they 'distinct'. The free exchange of seeds practiced for centuries ensures that characteristics are spread and shared across local varieties. And they are the opposite of 'uniform' and 'stable' by the very nature of their biodiversity." (3)

Order 81 comes with the Orwellian title of "Plant Variety Protection." Any self-respecting scientist knows, however, that imposing biological standardization accomplishes the exact opposite: It reduces biodiversity and threatens species. So Order 81 comes with an Orwellian title and consists of Orwellian provisions.

Jeffrey Smith peels away the layers of mischief behind Order 81, finding it nonsensical that six varieties of wheat have been developed for Iraq:

"Three will be used for farmers to grow wheat that is made into pasta; three seed strains will be for 'breadmaking.'

Pasta? According to the 2001 World Food Programme report on Iraq, 'Dietary habits and preferences included consumption of large quantities and varieties of meat, as well as chicken, pulses, grains, vegetables, fruits and dairy products.' No mention of lasagna. Likewise, a quick check of the Middle Eastern cookbook on my kitchen shelves, while not exclusively Iraqi, reveals a grand total of no pasta dishes listed within it.

There can be only two reasons why 50 per cent of the grains being developed are for pasta. One, the US intends to have so many American soldiers and businessmen in Iraq that it is orienting the country's agriculture around feeding not 'Starving Iraqis' but 'Overfed Americans'. Or, and more likely, because the food was never meant to be eaten inside Iraq at all…" (4)

Just in case Iraqi farmer can't read, Order 81 enforces the new monopoly on seeds with the jackboot. Order 81 makes this clear in its own text, buried at the bottom of the document, as is most screw-you fine print:

"The court may order the confiscation of the infringing variety as well as the materials and tools substantially used in the infringement of the protected variety. The court may also decide to destroy the infringing variety as well as the materials and tools or to dispose of them in any noncommercial purpose." (5)

Order 81 is about power and profit, but it disguises itself as humanitarian legislation.

Topping it all off, the entire document puts on rather magisterial airs. It was signed by L. Paul Bremer himself, with his own hand, and presumably with his own pen:

"Pursuant to my authority as Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority…"

Like the Roman Proconsuls, Paul Bremer also spent a year in the provinces, governing the so-called barbarians…

-The above is an excerpt from Andrew Bosworth’s new book: Biotech Empire: The Untold Future of Food, Pills, and Sex, available at Amazon.

-Andrew Bosworth, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of Government at the University of Texas at Brownsville.
__________________

[freckles]

Petition against GM foods here (http://www.avaaz.org/en/eu_health_and_biodiversity/97.php?cl_tta_sign=7c46f6e7fd2af06adfc5b418aaccc74 c)

It needs 1 million signatures, up to 756,542 now!! Thats good going!!

The European Commission has just approved growing genetically modified crops in the European Union for the first time in 12 years!

Caving to the GM lobby, the commission has ignored 60% of Europeans who feel we have to get the facts first before growing foods that could pose a threat to our health and environment.

A new initiative allows 1 million EU citizens to make official legal requests of the European Commission. Let's build a million voices for a ban on GM foods until the research is done; they will be delivered to the President Barroso of the European Commission. Sign the petition and forward this email to friends and family:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/eu_health_and_biodiversity/97.php?cl_tta_sign=7c46f6e7fd2af06adfc5b418aaccc74 c

Consumers, public health, environmental and farmers groups have long rallied against a few international GM companies having such significant influence over European agriculture. Concerns about growing GM crops include: contamination of organic crops and the environment; their impact on climate due to the excessive need for pesticides; the destruction of biodiversity and local agriculture; and the effects of GM food on public health.

EU member states have voiced strong opposition to last week's decision to authorise BASF's potato and Monsanto's maize -- Italy and Austria are opposed, and France said it would ask for further scientific research.

There is still no consensus on the long-term effects of GM crops. And it is the GM industry, pursuing profits not public well being, that is funding the science and driving the regulatory environment. That is why European citizens are calling for more independent research, testing and precaution before crops are unleashed onto our land.

Now, the "European Citizens' Initiative" gives 1 million EU citizens the opportunity to submit policy proposals to the European Commission and offers us a unique chance to drown out lobbyists' influence.

Let's raise 1 million voices to put a moratorium on the introduction of GM crops into Europe and set up an independent, ethical and scientific body to research and determine the strong regulation of GM crops. Sign the petition now and then forward it widely:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/eu_health_and_biodiversity/97.php?cl_tta_sign=7c46f6e7fd2af06adfc5b418aaccc74 c

With determination,

Alice, Benjamin, Ricken, Luis, Graziela and the entire Avaaz team.


More information:

Last Eurobarometer Survey 2008 'Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment', page 66:
http://bit.ly/aMkeVJ

The Independent, Fury as Brussels authorises GM potatoes:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/fury-as-eu-approves-gm-potato-1915833.html

Reuters, France blasts GM crop approvals by EU agency:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6241ZQ20100305

New Report: GMOs Causing Massive Pesticide Pollution:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell/new-report-gmos-causing-m_b_362888.html

Summary of the International Assessment on Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, including critics of GMOs use in agriculture:
http://globalpolicy.org/social-and-economic-policy/international-trade-and-development-1-57/genetically-modified-organisms.html#key

[ladygoogoo]

Monsato in their great and generous nature to destroy all native seed stock are now shipping their franken-food seed to Haiti to finish their local agriculture off once and for all.
You BASTARDS!!!!!!

[freckles]

Just watched a great documentary by Chris Dudley on GM crops, he looks into the GM chile peppers in New Mexico. Well worth a watch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://vimeo.com/11416802

http://www.genetic-chile.com/movie.html

[wwu777]

One of my scientific advisors said that GM Foods were safe. Here is what he said. Is it true?

On Wed, 12 May 2010, Happier Abroad vociferated:

}I have a question.
}
}Some say that genetically modified food in the US was damaging to your
}health and emotions, causing people to become more tense.

Baloney.

}How do you avoid genetically modified foods in the US or anywhere? I was
}told that food in Taiwan is also genetically modified.

Virtually /all/ food is genetically modified. What do you think
selective cross-breeding is?

}But how can you know which foods are and which aren't? I mean food does not
}say "genetically modified" on its label.

It doesn't, because there's no universal definition of what "genetically
modified" means. Whenever one plant is fertilized with pollen from
another plant, the resulting seed/offspring is genetically modified
with respect to the parent-plants.

Labling food "genetically modified" would be rather like labling it "edible".


}If genetically modified food is unhealthy and makes one tense,

Other than the fact that unhealthy and tense people also eat, there
is no evidence that eating is the cause of these vague conditions.


}then why did the FDA approve it? Aren't there studies measuring its effects?
}
}Any idea?

Genetically -engineered- food has been tested by the FDA, even though
gentic engineering is just a faster way of achieving genetic modification
that would occur through traditional food-raising processes, anyway.

"Because FDA determined that bioengineered foods should be
regulated like their conventional counterparts, FDA has
not to date established any regulations specific to
bioengineered food."

Here is a good summary of the FDA's position:

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm115032.htm


Dr H

On Thu, 13 May 2010, Happier Abroad vociferated:

}But organic food is not genetically modified right?

Depends on what you mean by "genetically modified," and what
you mean by "organic". There are not any universally agreed
upon definitions for either term.


}I thought genetically modified meant that some evil scientists were
}manipulating the DNA of food in a lab? lol Like in a Frankenstein movie? lol

Like I said -- *all* food is genetically modified. Cross breeding,
cross pollination, culling, developing hybrids -- these are all
means of manipulating DNA to produce specific desriable characteristics.

Just to take one example, there aren't very many people on the planet
who eat bread made from spelt. Instead, most of the population eats
bread made from wheat, and wheat is the end result of countless
generations of genetic manipulation on spelt. So anybody who consumes
bread or any kind of wheat product is eating genetically modified food.

I think you may be confusing "genetic modification" with "genetic
engineering". Genetic engineering is a way of fast-tracking the
process of genetic modification through direct manipulation of DNA
in the lab. That's a whole different animal, although it essentially
accomplishes the same end result as more traditional practices --
genetic modification.

There are theoretical possibilities with genetic engineering that
/might/ not be possible with more traditional genetic modification,
such as bringing traits across distinct species lines. But even here
what is really being accomplished is directed mutation. In theory
the genetic material could mutate on its own into the desired configuration,
but left to random factors it might take tens of thousands of years to
accomplish what genetic engineering can accomplish in months or even weeks.

And there \are\ pretty stringent regulations in place governing the
protocols, testing, and application of the recombinant DNA activities
that make up most of genetic engineering.


}Some say that eating food in the US makes one more tense and fat though. I
}find that to be the case too. But it might be the environment, especially in
}a busy place like the SF Bay Area. lol

People in the US get fat because they eat too much or if they're
not eating too much, too much of what they \are\ eating is junk food.

It's possible to eat a healthy diet -- and stay thin -- in the US
simply by doing more grocery shopping in the produce aisle and less
in the frozen-foods and cookies & chips aisle.

Nutritionists and food scientists have done a lot of research in
the past 30 years. What they've found is that pretty much the only
thing that definitely happens if you choose only organic food is
that you spend more money, faster. There are no demonstrated health
benefits from eating all organic, as opposed to eating the same
stuff as "regular" food.

And the US, being what we are, has even cranked-out mountains of
all-organic junk food. You can buy organic pizza, organic chips,
and even organic beer. If all you eat is pizza, chips, and beer
you're going to be fat and unhealthy even if you only eat strictly
organic versions of these products. And I've known people who
did this.



What makes the difference is how one -balances- their diet, not
whether one eats organic, or bio-engineered, or "regular" food.
While I wouldn't necessarily recommend veganism or strict vegetarianism
most Americans -could- stand to cut down on the amount of meat
they eat by as much as 75%, and they'd be thinner and healthier
for the change.

I mean -- good grief! -- Wendy's is now offering a "quadruple cheese
baconator" burger: 4-patties of meat (a whole pound), 4-slices of
cheese (a quarter pound), and a 1/4 pound of bacon. And this is
must on ONE burger.

I can feel my arteries hardening just looking at a picture of the
damned thing.


Outside of North America (and certain parts of South America) most
of the rest of the world eats a lot less meat. They don't have the
huge free-range available for raising cattle, for one thing. But
mostly, they're better off for it.


Dr H

[christ4life]

People in India must really think their jobs are important. Its just not worth killing yourself over GM crops. This is just terribly sad, and heartbreaking to read this.:( Then again it doesn't surprise me these crops fail, and if they don't rare uncureable viruses could happen next because you can't mess with the creators creation. If I were those people I would have kept the seeds from their previous crop, and planted them anyway. Knowing these people they probably would have thought it is the GM crop since they think they are God, and can do these things. Their pride, and arrogance would get the best of them, and make them look like fools.