African bishop at pro-GMO meet unsure what to believe

Bishop George Nkuo of the Kumbo diocese in Cameroon ought to read also:

New report undermines Vatican meeting
14 May 2009

On the eve of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences’ “Study Week” on genetically modified food ("Transgenic Plants for Food Security", 15-19 May 2009), a new report from GM Freeze shows why GM won’t, and can’t, deliver on its promises.

The report, GM Nutritionally Enhanced and Altered Crops [1], exposes the myth that new research will provide GM crops to feed the world. “First generation” GM crops are aimed at farmers by inserting genes for herbicide tolerance and insect resistance, which were said by GM companies to be a way to cut inputs and labour (now disputed as superweeds and chemical resistance emerge as major problems in GM areas). Consumers in the UK and around the world rejected GM food, so it is mainly used in animal feed and, more recently, in biofuels, neither of which are obvious or labelled at the point of sale [2], so consumers find it harder to avoid.

The biotech industry now hopes to boost their market with “nutritionally enhanced” GM crops, which it claims will alleviate malnutrition and improve health. Yet after over a decade of such promises, no nutritionally enhanced crops are commercially available, while better approaches to health and nutrition are cheaper and ready to use.

The “study week” being held at the Vatican appears to be at odds not only with mainstream scientific opinion (the 4-year study IAASTD by 400 scientists found that GM crops do not alleviate hunger, calling for broader, more inclusive agricultural research), but also with the wider Catholic church and even the Pope.

Among the critical reactions from Catholic organisations, an open letter on 27 April from CIDSE, the alliance of Catholic development agencies, to the organisers of the “study week” criticised the lack of diversity of analysis and opinion represented, the objective of the week (“to free the technology from the unhealthy constraints of 'extreme precautionary regulation'”), and expressed concern that, “the comprehensive documentation about the negative impact on the livelihood of rural poor by GE seeds is not reflected in the program.”

CIDSE added, “We regret that the Pontifical Academy of Science gives open preference to these [GM] protagonists and excludes at the same time important stakeholders including the voice of the Catholic Church in Africa.”

This was a reference to the Pope Benedict XVI’s 19 March Instrumentum Laboris of the Second Special Assembly for Africa of the Synod of Bishops attacking the “invasion” of multinational corporations that "back those in power, irrespective of human rights and democratic principles, so as to guarantee economic benefits through the exploitation of natural resources.”

The document adds:

"The seeding campaign of proponents of Genetically Modified Food, which purports to give assurances for food safety, should not overlook the true problems of agriculture in Africa: the lack of cultivatable land, water, energy, access to credit, agricultural training, local markets, road infrastructures, etc. This campaign runs the risk of ruining small landholders, abolishing traditional methods of seeding and making farmers dependent on the production companies of OGM." [3]

Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

“It is clear that GM is not going to feed the world, something the Pope and the Church in African, Latin America and elsewhere have already acknowledged. This “study week” is confused at best – it isn’t what is needed or wanted by those fighting hunger on the ground, yet heavy on vested interests. The Vatican will need to examine any recommendations that come out of this isolated meeting carefully before taking them up. It is the poor who need support, not the GM industry.”

ENDS

Calls to Pete Riley 0845 217 8992 or 07903 341065

Notes
1. See www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/GMF_nutrient_brief_final.pdf

2. Although under EU Regulation 1830/2003 animal feed must be labelled if any ingredient is more than 0.9% GM, the dairy products, meat and eggs produced by the animals it feed do not require a GM label. Bioethanol or biodiesel produced from GM crops do not have to be labelled as such.

3. See www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5939789.ece and www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2009/march/documents/hf... and GM Watch

Bishop George Nkuo of the Kumbo diocese in Cameroon. Nkuo, ought to also read:

Germans Ban GM Maize
14 April 2009
http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=380&iType=

GM Freeze has welcomed the decision by the German Agriculture Minister to ban the cultivation of Monsanto’s GM maize Mon 810.

The Federal Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner made the announcement this morning in Berlin and said:

"I conclude that there is legitimate reason to assume that genetically modified maize line Mon810 poses threats to the environment."

Germany will apply Article 23 of Directive 2001/18 to allow emergency measures against the EU approved GM maize variety. Mon810 is genetically engineered to produce Bt toxins that target an insect pest of maize.

The decision brings the total number of member states banning the cultivation of Mon810 to six (Austria, Luxemburg, France, Hungary and Greece being the other five). In addition, Italy and Poland have de facto bans in place.

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

“This is very good news for the whole of Europe, where non-GM food and animal feed is in great demand. Germany can now contribute to non-GM maize production without problems with GM contamination. Concerns about direct and indirect effects of GM plants which produce their own insecticides on the environment and health have been expressed many times over the last decade. A significant number of Member States have now decided to take action and the debate must continue at all levels. Do GM crops fit into European vision of sustainable farming? The latest decision by the German Agriculture Minister suggest they do not.”

ENDS

Calls to Pete Riley 0845 217 8992 or 07903 341065

"Strongest opposition comes from small and family farmers in South America and India who are already experiencing the social, economic and cultural impacts of GM crop"

Bishop George Nkuo of the Kumbo diocese in Cameroon. Nkuo, ought to hear what Prince Charles has to say on GM:

GM Freeze Welcome Prince Charles’s Comments on GM Crops
14 August 2008

GM Freeze has welcomed Prince Charles’s comments on the risks of widespread
introduction of GM crops to the environment.

The group supports his view that large scale production of GM crops will not
be sustainable and will lead to the destruction of rural communities.

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

“Prince Charles’s comments are a welcome contribution to the ongoing debate about GM crops around the world. Some of the strongest opposition comes from small and family farmers in South America and India who are already experiencing the social, economic and cultural impacts of GM crop monocultures driven forward by global corporations. The Prince has also focused on the environmental impacts of GM crops especially on the soil. Very little research is available on such impacts in South America where there is enormous pressure on farmers to adopt GM crops. In this country the government decided to ban four GM crops because of their impact on wildlife. Until very recently, research has ignored the impacts on soil and consequently our knowledge of how GM crops will impact on life below ground is very limited.

"The debate about GM crops is not only about science and the Prince Charles’s comments will enable the wider social, economic, cultural and political issues to get the attention they deserve.”

ENDS

Calls to Pete Riley 0845 217 8992 or 07903 341065

Multinationals condemned by Pope
March 19, 2009
TIMESONLINE
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5939789.ece

Pope releases draft document to African bishops accusing multinationals of 'invading' Africa and 'defiling God's creation'
Richard Owen in Rome

Pope Benedict XVI has given African bishops a draft document that accuses multinationals of "invading" Africa in search of natural resources and damaging the environment by "defiling God's creation".

The document, to be debated at a Synod of African bishops in Rome in October, says "outside forces" collude with corrupt leaders to fuel wars by trafficking arms without respect for human rights or democracy, "exploiting the wounded state of the human heart".

Multinationals "back those in power, irrespective of human rights and democratic principles, so as to guarantee economic benefits through the exploitation of natural resources" the document maintains. "They threaten to destabilise entire nations".

It adds that "in complicity with African leaders, they oppress local companies, buy thousands of hectares of land and expropriate populations from their land." It also attacks producers of genetically modified foods. The document does not however name the multinationals or specific African countries or leaders.

The Pope leaves Cameroon tomorrow for Angola, where he will preside over two masses and meet representatives of women's groups and Angolan youth.

wonder how this news squares with the closed door meeting, mentioned in Nature to be held at the Vatican in May with the GM industry.
Nature Biotechnology 27, 214 (2009)
Ingo Potrykus,, inventor of GM Golden Rice organised the meeting to consider a campagin for scientists to back GM.

Sue, London,

MONSANTO TAKES OVER THE VATICAN

For the Attention of Bishop George Nkuo of the Kumbo diocese in Cameroon. Nkuo,

GM hijacks Vatican in unholy alliance

Posted by
John Vidal Wednesday 20 May 2009 00.10 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/may/19/vatican-gm-foods

Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo is the chancellor of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the official voice of Catholic science.

Alas, he appears to have no idea how far his organisation has been hijacked by the genetic modification (GM) companies and their chums.

This week, the academy is hosting a "week of study" about food, and Sorondo says the intention has been to gather "an objective" group of experts.

Ho-hum.

Of the 40 people invited, all are well-known GM enthusiasts, claims Spinwatch, an independent organisation that "monitors the role of public relations and spin in contemporary society".

One of the participants, Eric Sachs, is a Monsanto employee;
another, Robert Paarlberg, is an adviser to Monsanto's CEO;
and several others work for companies heavily backed by Monsanto.

So who could have invited this esteemed group to Rome?
It seems the organisation was left to Ingo Potrykus, developer of GM "Golden Rice". This is the man who accused opponents of GM of "crimes against humanity".

There are two sources of data on this discussion that might be being missed.

1. A dedicated researcher might be curious about EXACTLY HOW MUCH PROFIT that GMO promoting industries and Roundup-friendly companies/technologies. Exorbitant profit is being raked in.

I know personally in my local area, where Monsanto suppressed organic growers, and took direct action to stop production of some organic crops in our valley.

Dear earnest Pastor of African peoples, I plead for you to investigate this. Grossly monopolistic business practices abound in the GMO culture.

2. The leading edge environmentally-protective growers are promoting LOCAL FOOD SALES TO LOCAL AREAS. The vitamin content is proven to be significantly higher in FRESHER vegetables/fruits. Significant vitamin content is lost in the first half hour after harvest.

The necessity of middlemen between fresh produce and mothers buying food for their families, even from a gender point of view, just is not the superior method.

Bishop George Nkuo of the Kumbo diocese in Cameroon ought to read this too:

Scientist Warns Inquiry About Drinking Milk From GM-Fed Cows

http://www.rense.com/general4/gmsd.htm

By Charles Arthur - Technology Editor

A scientist giving evidence at a public inquiry into a genetically modified (GM) maize intended for animals has said he would not drink the milk of cows fed on it.

Professor Bob Orskov, of the independent International Feed Resource Unit, told a hearing yesterday that "if the GM maize was approved for commercial growing in the UK, then people would be justified in turning their back on consuming milk derived from it". He added: "As a scientist, I wouldn't drink milk from cows fed GM maize with the present state of knowledge."

Another expert witness, Dr Vyvyan Howard, who is head of the Foetal and Infant Toxico-Pathology group at the University of Liverpool, told the hearing: "My interpretation is that this GM maize has not been tested thoroughly." He said after examining data from the biotechnology company Aventis, which makes the GM maize, there appeared to be "statistically significant" differences between the fat, protein and fibre composition of its "Chardon LL" GM strain and non-GM varieties.

But Des D'Souza, for Aventis, said last night that "the requirements for testing are set by the Government, not industry. We have met those requirements." Chardon LL has also been grown commercially and fed to animals since 1997 in the US and Canada with no ill effects, he added.

Professor Orskov and Dr Howard were giving evidence at a public inquiry to examine whether Chardon LL should be added to the UK's "National Seed Listing". Being included on that list is an essential step towards the crop being commercially planted, although Aventis and other biotech companies producing GM crops have said that they will wait for the outcome of the Government's "farm-scale" trials of such crops before they consider their wide-scale use. The trials could take up to three years to produce results.

But if the trials said that GM crops did not harm the environment, then any GM product already included on the National Seed List could be planted immediately. The maize in question is genetically engineered to be resistant to a particular pesticide produced by Aventis. The crop would only be used as "forage" to feed animals, principally in winter.

But Professor Orskov attacked the lack of rigour that had gone into its production. "It has only been fed as grain to chickens, not as a crop to cattle, which have four stomachs rather than one," he said after the hearing. "We need to carry out proper long-term tests both on the effect of the maize silage on the microbes in the stomach of the ruminants which digest the feed, and on the host animals. This has not been done."

Dr Howard added: "In [Aventis's] testing they have taken a protein from another plant and fed it to rats. I do not feel that this can be used as a basis for making judgements about the safety of this GM maize with respect to cattle."

Aventis is refusing to present any evidence at the hearing, despite being warned by the presiding barrister that not to do so could endanger its case.

The hearings follow pressure by the green group Friends of The Earth, which used a little-known aspect of the seed legislation to force a public hearing. The Government received so many objections that it was obliged to hold a public inquiry, which has been running since 2 October.

Nutritionally Enhanced Plants (NEPs),

JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL FOOD
J Med Food 11 (4) 2008, 000–000
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. and Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition
DOI: 10.1089/jmf.2008.0094

Perspective
The Problem with Nutritionally Enhanced Plants
David R. Schubert
Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California

ABSTRACT Among the next generation of genetically modified (GM) plants are those that are engineered to produce elevated levels of nutritional molecules such as vitamins, omega-3 fatty acids, and amino acids. Based upon the U.S. current regulatory scheme, the plants and their products may enter our food supply without any required safety testing. The potential risks of this type of GM plant are discussed in the context of human health, and it is argued that there should be very careful safety testing of plants designed to produce biologically active molecules before they are commercially grown and consumed. This will require a mandatory, scientifically rigorous review process.

INTRODUCTION

THE EVOLUTION OF genetically modified (GM) plant production is in a new phase that could have serious health consequences if the biology of these plants and their interaction with the consumer are not better understood. Currently he only widely planted GM crops are those engineered for insect and herbicide resistance, but there has been interest in marketing plant-based pharmaceuticals as well as nutritionally enhanced plants (NEPs), such as those producing vitamins and other food supplements. The bestknown example of a NEP is golden rice, which is engineered for the overproduction of -carotene, the precursor to retinol (vitamin A), but not yet commercialized.

It follows that before NEPs producing biologically active molecules such as -carotene, omega-3 fatty acids, or vitamin E are introduced into the food chain, great care must be taken to do rigorous, multigenerational animal safety assessments with the hope of identifying risks to health (for
methods, see, for example, the 2007 publication by the National Toxicology Program54 and Pusztai and Bardocz55).

In addition, the products must be labeled and traceable, and the unpredictable and unintended metabolic changes that may occur in NEPs require the thorough testing of the entire edible portion of the plant, not just the designated product as is almost always done by biotech companies.

To date there is essentially no multigenerational animal safety testing published for GM plants and no required labeling in the United States for any GM product.

In an excellent review of our current GM regulatory process, Mandel concluded that for second-generation GM products, like NEPs, “it is necessary to establish a comprehensive, efficient and scientifically rigorous regulatory system.” Mandel GN: Gaps, inexperience, inconsistencies, and overlaps:
crisis in the regulation of genetically modified plants and animals.
In: William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 45. William & Mary Marshall-
Wythe School of Law, Williamsburg, VA, 2004, pp.
2167–2259.

As discussed herein there are very valid scientific concerns to support this conclusion.

BOOK: The World According to Monsanto (Hardcover)by Marie-Monique Robin,New Press (August 1, 2009) ISBN-10: 1595584269, ISBN-13: 978-1595584267

DVD: The World According to Monsanto ( Le Monde selon Monsanto ) ( Monsanto, mit Gift und Gene ) [ NON-USA FORMAT, PAL, Reg.0 Import - France ]

10 reasons why we don’t need GM foods
http://www.bangmfood.org/images/stories/10reasons.pdf

1. GM foods won’t solve the food crisis
2. GM crops do not increase yield potential
3. GM crops increase pesticide use
4. There are better ways to feed the world
5. Other farm technologies are more successful
6. GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat
7. Stealth GMOs in animal feed — without consumers’ consent
8. No one is monitoring the impact of GM foods on health
9. GM and non-GM cannot co-exist
10. We can’t trust GM companies

“Let's be clear. As of this year [2008], there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield.Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one.” — Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman, former biotech specialist for the US Environmental Protection Agency and former advisor on GM to the US Food and Drug Administration

“If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell and consume GM foods, soon nobody will be able to choose food, or a biosphere, free of GM. It’s a one way choice,like the introduction of rabbits or cane toads to Australia;
once it’s made, it can’t be reversed.” — Roger Levett, specialist in sustainable development

“The promise was that you could use less chemicals and produce a greater yield. But let me tell you none of this is true.” — Bill Christison, President of the US National Family Farm Coalition

“Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell.” — Tom Wiley, North Dakota farmer

“The charge sheet is horrifying, inexorable and convincing. The multinational firm Monsanto, which sells 90 per cent of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), lies on a massive scale to many people and even the whole planet
with great success. That’s the power that money and the apparently unlimited support of the United States government bestows.

You already know all that if you’ve watched Marie-Monique Robin's extraordinary documentary, ‘The World According to Monsanto’.” — Le Monde

Good Book for Bishop George Nkuo of the Kumbo diocese in Cameroon:

Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating (Paperback)
by Jeffrey M. Smith; Yes! Books (September 2003)
ISBN-10: 0972966587; ISBN-13: 978-0972966580

Recent news headlines have focused on the disagreement between the U.S. and Europe over genetically modified foods: the U.S. exports them, but the European Union doesn't want to import them, believing their safety remains unproven.

Are genetically modified foods safe?

Longtime anti-GM foods campaigner Smith presents the "opposing" case. He offers cases where GM produced results that were at best unexpected (increased starch content in potatoes), at worst grotesque (pigs without genitals).

He describes how one corporation reportedly tried to bribe Canadian government scientists into approving genetically engineered bovine growth hormones they deemed unsafe; how some scientists have reported their careers were threatened as a result of their refusal to approve certain GM products in the U.S.; and how "conflicts of interest, sloppy science, and industry influence" can distort the approval process. The cases Smith presents are scary and timely.

"Seeds of Deception" lays bare the blockbuster food safety issue of the 21st century. Every American should read this book. -- James S. Turner Esq., author of "The Chemical Feast: The Nader Report on the Food and Drug Administration"

This book, which is the best written on the subject, is essential reading for food activists and concerned consumers. -- Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the Organic Consumer's Association

**************************************************************************

Having read a number of articles and books on genetically engineered foods, I found this book to be very comprehensive and very well written. I highly recommend it if you are interested in your health.

As a biologist who has worked with DNA, and respect it, I place great value on Smith's easy to understand explanation on the genetic engineering process on DNA. Smith has also carefully researched FDA reports and quoted several people in his analysis of GMOs and their impact on society.

With methodological precision, his research reveals the close ties of the U.S. government with biotechnology industry in several aspects of GMO production.

Even more disturbing is the influence of biotechnology companies such as Monsanto, Novartis, Dow, and DuPont having on the government - they gave more than 3.5 million dollars (from 1995-2000) towards campaign contributions, with 3/4 going to Republicans.

His research also reveals the impact of the genetically modifed amino acid L-tryptophan in 1989-1990 that debilitated thousands of people with EMS, a disease that produces severe muscle pain, and even death. Forty people died from taking this L-tryptophan. This product was never labled that it was genetically modified and the Japanese manufacturer - Showa Denko KK did not use the proper filtration level to remove the impurities. Subsequent from these health risks, the product was removed from shelves.

My favorite quotes from this book came from George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine. He said for genetic engineeering - "The results will be essentially new organisms, self-perpetuating and hence permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled" and "Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism, or their neighbors." Those are powerful words and cannot be forgotten.

Read this book. It will change your life. You owe it to yourself and your family.

This book might SAVE AFRICA from
the NEXT WAVE OF DESTRUCTION BY
the AMERICAN MULTINATIONAL MONSANTO,

not through SLAVERY,
not through denying EXPENSIVE MEDICINES FOR HIV/AIDS, MALARIA and TB.
not through LOOTING its NATURAL RESOURCES by BRIBING the DICTATORS,
not through LOOTING its OIL AND MINERALS
but by STARVING AND KILLING MILLIONS OF AFRICANS.
*************************************************************************

Bishop George Nkuo of the Kumbo diocese in Cameroon must read this before he lets MONSANTO take over AFRICA:

SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation (Paperback)
by William F. Engdahl Global Research;
1st edition (November 20, 2007)
ISBN-10: 0973714727;
ISBN-13: 978-0973714722

If you want to learn why biotech corporations insist on spreading GMO seeds around the World you should read this carefully researched book. You will learn how these corporations want to achieve control over all mankind, and why we must resist... --Marijan Jost, Professor of Genetics, Krizevci, Croatia

The book reads like a murder mystery of an incredible dimension, in which four giant Anglo-American agribusiness conglomerates have no hesitation to use GMO to gain control over our very means of subsistence... --Anton Moser, Professor of Biotechnology, Graz, Austria

What is so frightening about Engdahl's vision of the world is that it is so real. In this new age of free markets, everything science, commerce, agriculture and even seeds have become weapons in the hands of a few global corporation barons and their political fellow travelers. --Dr. Arpad Pusztai, biochemist, formerly of the Rowett Research Institute, Scotland.

This skillfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish its control over the very basis of human survival, the provision of our daily bread. Control the food and you control the people. This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms. The author reveals a World of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. The book is an eye-opener, a must-read for all those committed to the causes of social justice and World peace.

*****************************************************************************

What a priceless work of research and documentation (some 17 years of hard research) into the heart of absolute Evil that is masquerading behind this GMO movement--the veritable cancer that is metastasizing upon the Earth body--and that has been behind the so-called eugenics movement since 1913. But this book is much more than GMO. It is about the people behind the GMO and eugenics movement and why they are doing what they are doing.

If you really care about your children, your family, and the survival of the human race and of planet earth, then you must first buy and read this book, and then buy 10 more copies as I did and give them to all your friends and family members.

Tell them that this book might save their lives.

I have said this many times, "Knowledge is only a seed, only illumined action produces fruits!' This book is that vital seed without which we are looking toward to some really dire eventualities.

Before African Farmers get trapped by MONSANTO,

Bishop George Nkuo of the Kumbo diocese in Cameroon must read this book:

Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds (Paperback)
by Claire Hope Cummings; Beacon Press; Reprint edition (March 1, 2009)
ISBN-10: 0807085812
ISBN-13: 978-0807085813

Former environmental lawyer and one-time farmer Cummings offers a persuasive account of a lesser-known but potentially apocalyptic threat to the world's ecology and food supply—the privatization of the Earth's seed stock. For almost a century, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided seeds at no cost to farmers who then saved seeds from one harvest to another, eventually developing strains best suited to local or regional climates. But Cummings also tells how seeds became lucrative, patentable private properties for some of the nation's most powerful agribusinesses. Cummings bemoans the plague of sameness intensified by the advent of such fitfully regulated companies as Monsanto, which now not only own genetically modified seed varieties, but also sue farmers when wind inevitably blows seeds onto their neighboring fields. According to Cummings, this tyranny of the technological[ly]elite threatens agricultural diversity and taints food sources. Among the author's many startling statistics is that 97% of 75 vegetables whose seeds were once available from the USDA are now extinct. Cummings heralds plans for a Doomsday Vault to shelter existing natural seed stock, and finds comfort in organic farming's growth, but her authoritative portrait of another way in which our planet is at peril provides stark food for thought.

THESE GROUPS have information on the PERILS OF GMO:

Friends of the Earth www.foe.co.uk

GM Freeze www.gmfreeze.org

GM Watch www.gmwatch.org

Soil Association www.soilassociation.org

Gene Watch www.genewatch.org

Genetic Food Alert www.geneticfoodalert.supanet.com

Institute for Responsible Technology www.responsibletechnology.org

US Department of Agriculture worried about GM food imports
Ecologist 06/03/2009

Having exported largely untested GM crops around the world for decades, the US is suddenly starting to worry about what genetically modified organisms other countries might send their way.

The Office of the Inspector General, an internal auditor for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), warns in a report that ‘while the consequences of unapproved transgenic plants or animals entering the US food supply are difficult to foresee, such an event could provoke health and environmental concerns and interfere with commerce.’

The authors of the report worry that ‘the USDA has no controls in place that would identify… undeclared transgenic plants unknown to the US regulatory system’.

Recommendations include working closely with countries developing GM crops to ensure that they are known to US regulators before they leave the laboratory, and developing a policy for dealing with unknown GM imports.

The US has previously lodged objections with the World Trade Organisation over the length of time the EU’s regulators have spent assessing GM crops for health and environmental impacts.

Learn from America's MISTAKES;
Dont Destroy the Small Farmer in AFRICA

Watch on YOUTUBE:
The plight of the New Mexico heritage chili tradition, as it is threatened by incoming GE seeds, which could pollute the seeds that have been passed on for generations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyEZvk6BPQ4

New Mexico's traditional chilies are threatened by GMO seeds
Ecologist 22/01/2009

New Mexico’s chilli farmers are under threat. The film 'Red, green of GE?' hears from those concerned about the potentially devastating effects GMO crops would have on the New Mexico chilli.

In 2008 New Mexico state, USA, funded research into developing the feasibility of genetically engineered chilli seeds. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson signed a resolution that will invite GM green chilli seeds into the state, threatening traditional seeds cultivated by Native American and Hispanic families.

The film, 'Red, Green or GE?' hears from the voices of those who oppose such measures that are being proposed because of the threat to chilli production from various diseases and an unstable agricultural market.

Survival depends on farmers. You have to have the seeds in order for the plant to grow. Then you have to plow the ground and make a nice garden, then plant the seeds and water them and after it has grown you have to continue to do it all over again. If there are no farmers their will be no grains for the people to eat! if People are taught to plant and sow, they can and with God's help Will survive. If they just wait around for someone to airdrop the food, they might die!

If Africa is eager to be MONSANTO's GUINEA PIG, it is time they learn from the mistakes of others, like India.

It is only a matter of time before all FOOD AID money from the West will end up in MONSANTO'S COFFERS, while driving the poor small African Farmers totally out of business.

"The US seed company Monsanto recently was allowed to open a laboratory in the prestigious Indian Institute of Science campus in Bangalore, INDIA which would only facilitate biopiracy because adequate plant protection laws do not exist, claims Sharma.

Besides, experiments conducted by the Monsanto Laboratory could result in serious damage to the Indian environment, several environmentalists have pointed out.

Devender Sharma has, in a letter to Prime Minister A B Vajpayee, demanded cancellation of an order for one million tonnes of soya beans from the United States, since the consignment is certain to have genetically engineered soya bean.

The US has been mixing genetically engineered soya bean with naturally produced ones and using countries like India as 'guinea pigs' because these are not acceptable in their own country, Dr Sharma said.

http://www.rediff.com/business/1998/mar/23rice.htm

Monsanto's Failure with GM COTTON in INDIA:

Field data on India's first Bt cotton harvest
Gene Campaign Press Release April 15, 2003

Gene Campaign today presented the data on India's very first GM crop, Bt cotton, which had received conditional approval for commercial cultivation in March 2002. The data collected from 100 farmers selected from 16 villages in Warangal in Andhra Pradesh and Yavatmal in Maharashtra were presented in a discussion with NGOs, experts and the media.

Gene Campaign, which showed a video film about the interviews with farmers, presented data clearly showing that Bt cotton had failed. Bt cotton was not resistant to the bollworm and farmers sprayed about the same amount of pesticides on both, thus showing no great saving in pesticide, as claimed by Monsanto, the owner of the variety.

Field data also show that the Bt cotton plant is weak and that the boll size is small, The length of the cotton fibre is shorter than in non Bt cotton, so the yield is less and the quality poor. Angry cotton farmers are vowing that they will not grow Bt cotton again.

Cotton traders are not lifting Bt cotton, preferring instead the successful non Bt varieties like Brahma and Banny . They pay a better rate for non Bt cotton so far farmers are surreptiously mixing Bt cotton with non Bt to sell their Bt cotton harvest.

What is clear is that the economics of Bt cotton simply does not work. Input costs are almost Rs. 1000/ acre higher than for non Bt cotton. The seed alone costs 4 times as much as good varieties of non Bt cotton. Savings on pesticides are merely Rs.217/ acre while seed is Rs. 1200/acre more expensive. The failure of Bt cotton is bitter and widespread. Sixty percent of Bt farmers were unable to recover their costs and actually were in the red to the tune of Rs. 80/per acre. Non-Bt cotton farmers did better in all categories of farm types, low, medium and high yielders.

What is shocking is that GM crop cultivation has been sanctioned and allowed to continue in states even though the mandated regulatory authorities have not been set up, No state Level Committee or District Level Committee is set up in either Andhra Pradesh or Maharashtra. This is in blatant violation of the Rules for the regulation of GM organisms which comes under the Environmental Protection Act, 1989.

Gene Campaign has demanded an investigation into this act of criminal negligence which has endangered the fundamental rights of every citizen to a healthy life and safe environment guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The GEAC, India's top level authority for approving GM crops has some answering to do.

Why did the GEAC grant approval to Mahyco- Monsanto's Bt 162, Bt 184, when these are well known as poor to modest performing varieties ?

Why was approval given to Bt 12,Bt 162, Bt 184 when other better Bt cotton varieties are in the pipeline ?

How did the GEAC grant approval for cultivating a GM crop when the mandated Regulatory Committees to oversee performance and safety are not even constituted ?

Gene Campaign has charged the GEAC with criminal negligence in another context. The Campaign has been demanding that the field trial data of the Monsanto Bt cotton be made available to the public. The GEAC has consistently refused to do so. Had this been done, there is a strong chance that the poor performance would have been detected early and farmers would have been spared this debacle and loss .

Gene Campaign demands that the government ensure that Monsanto is made to pay compensation to those farmers who have suffered losses on account of Bt cotton. Law mandates this. Section 39 (2) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001, requires breeder to pay compensation if his variety fails to perform as claimed.
[Field data on Bt and non-Bt cotton performance can be requested from genecamp@vsnl.com]

The AgBioIndia bulletins are an effort by the Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security to bridge the yawning gap in our understanding of the politics of food. We believe these bulletins will create wider awareness and understanding of the compexities of the crisis facing Indian agriculture and food security. We will keep you posted on the intricacies and games being enacted in the name of eradicating hunger. It is a non-commercial educational service for non-profit organisations and individuals. Subscribers are welcome to contribute information. You can view previous issues at http://www.agbioindia.org/archive.asp

More on Monsanto's Failure with GM COTTON in INDIA:

"Monsanto tried to disrupt our meeting"
Suman Sahai
Dear Sharma ji

You would have probably heard of the effort made to "disrupt" our Bt cotton discussion today. I am providing you additional details:

Gene Campaign had organised a discussion on April 15, 2003, at the India International Centre, New Delhi, to discuss the results of a field study on the first ever GM crop harvest in India, that of Bt cotton.

The discussion was organised with experts, NGOs and the media. The Chairperson of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) was also invited but she did not come. Monsanto and Mahyco were invited, and they too did not turn up.

Suddenly after the meeting had started, a stream of about 30 farmers entered the room where the discussion were being held and started occupying the chairs . They were speaking in " telugu" (the language spoken in Andhra Pradesh) and so it was obvious they were from Andhra. Their leader, one Mr. Jaipal Reddy began to interrupt and started taking over the discussion. I suggested to them that we have done a study in those regions of AP that they point out, and that we had directly gone to the farmers to find out the truth. I even offered to hold a joint study once again to find out the truth.

But unfortunately, there were attempts to disrupt the meeting which did not succeed too well. Farmers meanwhile began to interact with the media, specially the TV crews, saying they were getting fantastic results with Bt cotton and everyone was definitely going to grow it again. They began denouncing the work being reported in the discussion saying the results were not true.

On being questioned, farmers admitted they had been sent by Monsanto, their fare and hospitality had been paid by Monsanto and they were sent by train the night before specifically for Gene Campaign's meeting. They also said they were asked by Monsanto to speak strongly in favor of Bt cotton and to say they were all in support of Bt cotton.

Accompanying Monsanto's farmers into the India International Centre (IIC) were some unknown people as well as Barun Mitra of Liberty Institute, known to be Monsanto's point man in Delhi. He was guiding the 'farmers' and encouraging them to occupy the front seats and not move from there.

A luxury air-conditioned bus waited outside the IIC to take Monsanto's farmers back, guided and shephered by Mr. Jaipal Reddy and Mr. Barun Mitra.

However, in the film clip that we had shown (recorded on location in AP ), the Agriculture Minister of Andhra Pradesh is seen on record saying that the state agriculture department and the scientists from the State Agriculture University who had independently collected data, have reported that Bt had not performed well and farmers were very disappointed.

Monsanto chose not to come up front to debate the results or present its case even though it was invited to do so. It chose instead to send a bunch of paid 'farmers' to act aggressive and try to break up the meeting.

Suman Sahai

*****************************************************************************

Monsanto's "Shock and Awe"
DEVINDER SHARMA / AgBioIndia Bulletin 17apr03
The American biotech giant, Monsanto, seems to have picked up a leaf from the empty book of George Bush Jr. -- if you are not with us in pushing the risky genetically engineered seeds, than you are against us. So goes the new refrain.

True to the mantra, it demonstrated its "shock and awe" fire power when a bus load of farmers brought from Andhra Pradesh disembarked in New Delhi to 'disrupt' a meeting organised by the New Delhi-based NGO Gene Campaign, on Tuesday, April 15. Gene campaign was merely presenting the data of a field study on the performance of Bt cotton crop in Andhra Pradesh.

The sad incident happened in the presence of a former Finance Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh, who too pleaded with Monsanto's hired farmers to let the data of the Bt cotton harvest be presented. These farmers were accompanied by the head of the Liberty Institute, an arch supporter of Mahyco-Monsanto and a promoter of free trade and economic liberalisation.

It wasn't unexpected. We have always warned against the games being enacted in the name of agricultural development and growth. Multinational companies can go to any extent, even use muscle-power to browbeat the country into acceptance of faulty technologies. We bring you the report of the unsavoury incident from the pen of the Gene Campaign's director Dr Suman Sahai, along with the results of the study.

www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Monsanto-Shock-And-Awe17apr03.htm - 12k

Bangladesh cancelled Deal with Monsanto

Monsanto - Handled with CARE?
or, CARE - Handled by MONSANTO? Major US Relief Agency holds talks with troubled agbiotech multinational-- Who's helping Who?
Date: Mar 09, 1999

CARE, the high-profile U.S. food aid non-profit, is holding talks today with Monsanto Corporation at the company's world headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri (US).

According to information received by RAFI, Monsanto's CEO Robert Shapiro contacted CARE's President, Peter Bell, inviting CARE officials to discuss ways in which Monsanto may be able to use its technologies for the benefit of food security in the South.

Whether this is an attempt to resurrect Monsanto's scheme to provide micro-credit (soft") loans to Third World farmers in order to market its proprietary pesticides and genetically-modified seeds remains to be seen.

Monsanto is one of the world's leading Gene Giants ­ dominant in both crop chemicals and seeds.

The company's best known product, Roundup (glyphosate), is the world's top selling herbicide and a multi-billion dollar profit engine for Monsanto.

The company's patents on Roundup are expiring, however, and Monsanto is looking for new ways to maintain its market share and to advance sales of its controversial transgenic (genetically-modified) soybean, maize, cotton, and potato varieties. Using genetic engineering, Monsanto has bred seeds that tolerate Roundup spraying. It is estimated that the contentious market strategy has won Monsanto at least 85% of the booming U.S. transgenic seed market, and experts suggest, a similar share of the global transgenic market.

Cash 'n CARE?

In June 1998, Monsanto announced that it would develop a special microcredit programme with the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh that would have made it financially feasible for cash-starved farmers to take out loans to buy Monsanto's advanced technology products. The Grameen Bank has won international accolades for its championing of credit programmes to rural women who would not normally be seen as credit-worthy by conventional banks.

Within a month of the Monsanto-Grameen announcement, however, the Bangladeshi institution cancelled the deal bowing to intense public pressure within South Asia and around the world.

Once More with Feeling? "At the time, we heard rumours that CARE and possibly some other development aid agencies were discussing similar deals with Monsanto," Pat Mooney, RAFI's executive director says, "but we were told that CARE backed away from the table when Grameen threw in the towel." "Now we are informed that an international team of CARE officials from their New York office, but also from some of their major regional offices, have gone to St. Louis to discuss a major initiative with Monsanto," Mooney adds, "This could be a real problem."

GMO's in Every Pot?

Last year, more than 27.8 million hectares of farmland around the world was sown to genetically modified crops. Seventy seven percent of this land was sown to transgenic seeds designed to tolerate herbicide spraying. While the biggest market for biotech seed is in the USA and Canada, South countries such as Argentina, Mexico, South Africa, and China have also adopted the controversial seeds. Trials of Monsanto's transgenic seeds in India have led to mass demonstrations and intense debate in the media and in government. Similar debates are underway in Brazil. In Europe, environmentalists, farmers, and consumers have joined together to oppose the use of transgenic seeds.

GMO's Handled by CARE?

Blocked in Europe, is Monsanto trying to use well-known aid agencies to win acceptance for its GMOs among farmers and consumers in the South?

"Monsanto officials genuinely believe they have products that will solve the problem of food shortages in the next century," Hope Shand of RAFI says. "The company may not be acting cynically. They believe they can make money and solve hunger through GMOs at the same time," Shand explains, "If the meeting with CARE is to use the food aid agency to test and distribute their genetically-altered seeds among poor farmers, both CARE and Monsanto are making a terrible mistake."

What exactly the goal is for the St. Louis talks? Are they to establish soft loan programmes tied to Monsanto products, or to use CARE's field offices to facilitate trials of genetically-engineered herbicide-tolerant seeds? "Either way," Pat Mooney concludes, "neither party has the credibility to pull this venture off. CARE will be lambasted for jeopardizing the food security of farmers and Monsanto will be accused of using CARE as 'cheap labour' for its commercial goals. Whatever their intent, this indeed will be the result. I've talked with CARE negotiators in New York and I'm hopeful that they understand the issues and will not let their good name be used to pressure farmers into adopting Monsanto's unsustainable approach to agriculture."

CARE Bears?

Monsanto is transforming itself from being a traditional chemical company into a dominant player in the Life Industry.

In recent years, Monsanto has spent more than $8.5 billion in acquiring seed companies across the world. Many market analysts believe however, that Monsanto has over-extended itself and is now weighed under by a huge debt burden. In the midst of the world's longest running bull market, Monsanto is on some investor's bear lists.

Last year, Monsanto announced that it would merge with American Home Products ­ another chemicals-turned-biotech corporation more than twice Monsanto's size. The deal was eventually called off. Last week, the New York Times reported that Monsanto was holding preliminary discussions with DuPont ­ a vastly larger multinational now attempting to extricate itself from energy subsidiaries in order to buy into the Life Industry. The message to many investors is that Monsanto is a company in trouble and looking for allies.

Monsanto, headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri (US) has 32,000 employees, a market capitalization of $28 billion and 1998 revenues of $9 billion. The company is reportedly in merger discussions with DuPont.

CARE, headquarters in New York (US) is a major non-profit, international relief organization. In 1998, CARE delivered $339 million in aid to over 35.3 million people in 51 countries.

RAFI, the Rural Advancement Foundation International, is an international civil society organization headquartered in Canada. RAFI is dedicated to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and to the socially responsible development of technologies useful to rural societies. RAFI is concerned about the loss of agricultural biodiversity, and the impact of intellectual property on farmers and food security."

http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=376

GOD MAY OBJECT

GMO

http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=355

Unholy Alliance - Corporate Cristi at the Vatican

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -

For the past two years, the Gene Giants and the Food industry have been reeling from one media disaster after another and retreating from mounting consumer and producer opposition. The Alliance for Better Foods is the belated and bothered counter-attack from the U.S. multinationals. This past spring in Europe, food industry reps told the gene giants that they wouldn’t “take a bullet” for GM seeds. Apparently U.S. food companies – and the Vatican – feel otherwise. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

The industry had anticipated that the crop acreage sown to GM seeds in the United States would double from about 65 million acres this year to over 120 million acres in Y2K.

Biotech companies were projecting seed sales in the U.S. to jump from $1 billion to $2billion. Instead, one report in the Wall Street Journal predicts a 20% sales decline – in a market and at a time when momentum means everything.*

Privately, industry spin-doctors concede that the gene giants’ Generation One products (unabashedly tying herbicides to seeds) were tactically stupid and indefensibly selfserving. Many also fear that Generation Two (featuring traits that save processors money) will prove an equally hard sell. The food industry’s pointless defense of Generation One will confirm consumer opposition to Generation Two.

The Empire Strikes Out.

Corporate Cristi?

The Vatican’s faith in the food industry is hardly justified given recent events in Europe and elsewhere. After four years commercialized GM crops, it is both impossible to prove risk or to prove safety. Given that Generation One GMOs offer us little more than seeds that can shower in toxic chemicals, it is hard to understand why society should take risks so that the food industry can make profits.

The Vatican has not expressed an opinion as to whether transgenic grapes and transgenic cereals are compatible with the doctrine of transubstantiation (the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ as taught by the Church). One transgression at a time?

Kilman, Scott, “Seeds of Doubt – Once Quick Converts Midwest Farmers Lose Faith in Biotech Crops”, Wall Street Journal , Nov. 19, 1999, p. A1 and A8.

AFRICA is to be fed what "U.S. pet food company Iams recently announced that GMO maize is not acceptable for dog food!"

http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=362

In the words of U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman,, opposition to genetically engineered foods and seeds, once confined to Europe, has spread like 'an infectious disease.' The list of food processors, retailers, farmers, consumers, and governments who give a thumbs down to GMOs is mushrooming. Earlier this year, the world s largest food processors, Unilever and Nestle, said they would reject GM ingredients in their European products. Europe s largest grocery store chains followed suit. Last week, Japanese brewers, Kirin and Sapporo, announced they would begin using only non-genetically engineered maize to brew their beer. The Japanese government now requires companies to label genetically engineered products.

In the dog house: Mexico s biggest tortilla maker, Grupo Maseca, says it will stop importing genetically modified grain. After Greenpeace disclosed that commercial baby food contains GMOs, U.S.-based Gerber (Novartis) and H.J. Heinz vowed to reject genetically engineered corn and soya. Adding insult to injury, U.S. pet food company Iams recently announced that GMO maize isn t acceptable for dog food!

A federal judge in Brazil, the world s second largest exporter of soybeans, barred the planting of GM soybeans until environmental impact assessments are prepared. The Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul has declared itself a GM-free state.

Farmers Defecting:

Peasants and farmers worldwide, from France to India to Brazil have successfully protested the introduction of GM seeds. Now, even U.S. farmers may be defecting from a genetically modified future. A Deutsche Bank study entitled 'GMOs Are Dead' sent tremors through the international investment community with its prediction in May, 1999 that price premiums for GMO seeds could collapse. In a desperate attempt to rescue a sinking ship, Deutsche Bank reports that Monsanto began offering free RoundUp herbicide to farmers who use the company s new RoundUp Ready (herbicide tolerant) maize seed.

In growing numbers, American farmers resent being guinea pigs for GMO crops that nobody wants to buy or eat. An uncharacteristically bold press release issued by the American Corn Growers Association last week said that 'GMOs have become the albatross around the neck of farmers' and urged its members to plant non-GM seed. The Corn Growers struck at the guts of the issue when it asked, 'How does the monopolistic practice of a handful of companies controlling the entire GMO process effect the future of U.S. food production?' http://www.acga.org

DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

AFRICAN FARMERS CANNOT SAVE AND REPLANT SEEDS (THANKS TO MONSANTO)

In March of 1998, a seed company later to be purchased by Monsanto, Delta and Pine Land Company, in collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture, was awarded U.S. Patent Number 5,723,765: Control of Plant Gene Expression.

Although the patent is broad and covers many applications, one application favored by the patent's authors is a scheme to engineer crops to kill their own seeds in the second generation, thus making it impossible for farmers to save and replant seeds.

This 'invention' has been dubbed the 'Terminator Technology' by Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), and that group of researchers have analyzed some of the technology's serious social, economic and environmental implications (RAFI 1998).

However, many of the consequences of Terminator cannot be fully appreciated without an understanding of the science behind the invention.

BACKGROUND:

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have become a commercial reality in agriculture. For example, it is estimated that in 1998 over 18 million acres in the United States will be planted in Roundup Ready® soybeans, which were first introduced in 1996 (Horstmeier 1998). These soybeans are engineered by Monsanto Corporation to contain a bacterial gene that confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, or Roundup® , also made by Monsanto. Only two years after the introduction of Roundup Ready® soybeans, over 30% of the corn and soybeans planted in the United States, and close to 50% of the canola planted in Canada, have been genetically engineered to be either herbicide or pesticide resistant.

Monsanto and the other companies that have invested heavily in biotechnology in the last two decades are starting to make some money after years of promises without products, and they are aggressively protecting their patented seeds. In a recent issue of the Farm Journal (Monsanto 1997), Monsanto ran a full page advertisement asking farmers to respect the company's property rights:

"It takes millions of dollars and years of research to develop the biotech crops that deliver superior value to growers. And future investment in biotech research depends on companies' ability to share in the added value created by these crops. Consider what happens if growers save and replant patented seed. First, there is less incentive for all companies to invest in future technology, such as the development of seeds with traits that produce higher-yielding, higher-value and drought-tolerant crops....In short, these few growers who save and replant patented seed jeopardize the future availability of innovative biotechnology for all growers. And that's not fair to anyone. "

In the future, companies and government breeders who genetically engineer crops may not have to ask for such compliance. If the procedure outlined in a recent patent comes to fruition and is widely used, plant variety protection will be biologically built into the plants themselves.

An explanation for the non-scientist of a remarkable patent for killing second generation seeds of crop plants revised edition 1998

by Martha L. Crouch,
Associate Professor of Biology
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana, USA
crouch@indiana.edu

This paper is one in a series of essays meant to stimulate and inform discussion of the subject. The author invites readers to correspond with her directly if they have comments or questions about her interpretation of the Terminator patent.

http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=430

Brazilian protesters destroy GM crops: group

Women Invade Monsanto Fields in Brazil
Friday, March 07 2008 @ 03:25 PM CST

Contributed by: John Brown

Around 300 women rural residents in Brazil burst into a property owned by the US company Monsanto and destroyed a plant nursery and crops containing genetically modified corn, their organization said.

The women were protesting what they saw as environmental damage by the crops.

They trashed the plants within 30 minutes and left before police arrived at the site in the southern state of Sao Paulo, a member of the Landless Workers' Movement, Igor Foride, told AFP.

The Brazilian government had "caved in to pressure from agrobusinesses" by recently allowing tinkered crops to be grown in the country, he said.

In Brasilia, a protest by another 400 women from an umbrella group, Via Campesina (the Rural Way), was held in front of the Swiss embassy against Syngenta, a Swiss company that is selling genetically modified seeds in Brazil.

The demonstrators called attention to an October 2007 incident in which private guards working for Syngenta killed a protester taking part in an occupation of land owned by the company.

Via Campesina said in a statement that "no scientific studies exist that guarantee that genetically modified crops won't have negative effects on human health and on nature."

It added that on Tuesday, another 900 of its members had entered a property owned by the Swedish-Finnish paper giant Stora Enso and ripped out non-modified eucalyptus saplings they claimed were illegally planted.

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080307152528777

How BRAZIL "CAVED IN" to Monsanto's "PRESSURE" to go along with GMO.

Opinion polls show that 65 percent of Brazilians are against the production of GMOs and 71 percent would rather not eat food with genetically modified ingredients. While the public still shuns GMO crops, Monsanto and soy farmers have already successfully pressured the Brazilian legislature to legalize genetically modified soy.

GMO production had been prohibited in Brazil since 1998 when consumer organizations filed a lawsuit arguing that production should only be allowed after it was determined conclusively that such crops were safe for humans and the environment.

In early 2003, however, soy producers from southern Brazil pressured the federal government to legalize the production of the genetically modified crop, alleging that much of Brazil’s soy had already been illegally converted to Monsanto’s genetically modified Roundup Ready variety.

A national seminar discussing GMOs in March 2003 gathered together 85 civil society organizations and accused Monsanto of turning a blind eye to the widespread smuggling of genetically modified soy seeds from Argentina.

According to a document presented at the seminar, Monsanto deliberately kept loose controls on Roundup Ready soy seeds sold in Argentina in order to facilitate distribution of the seeds in Brazil. “This attitude seems to be part of a deliberate strategy to contaminate Brazilian soy production and create a de facto situation to knock down national legislation controlling its products,” the document states.

As a result, with up to one-third of the soy crop contaminated last year, Brazil’s government caved in to the pressure to legalize the harvest. Large farms and Monsanto celebrated the decision while landless workers, small farmers, and environment and consumer organizations demonstrated.

Greenpeace organized supermarket protests against genetically modified products. Via Campesina, an international coalition of peasant movements, camped for 61 days in Brasilia protesting the legalization of GMOs. But despite these efforts, Monsanto and farmers successfully lobbied again in September to have the precedent extended to the next harvest.

http://www.indypendent.org/2004/02/04/sos-save-our-soy-monsanto-campaign...

Bishop George Nkuo of the Kumbo diocese in Cameroon,

Here are some information on GMO, and its consequences.

Useful info:

Adresse Postale: BP 3430, Yaoundé, Cameroun
Domicile: Etoa-Meki, Yaoundé
Tel: +237 22 22 38 57
Fax: +237 22 22 38 59
Email: infos@cedcameroun.org

http://www.cedcameroun.org/

http://www.foei.org/

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/who_benefits_from_gm_crops.pdf

Friends of the Earth International
secretariat po box 19199, 1000 gd amsterdam, the netherlands
tel: 31 20 622 1369. fax: 31 20 639 2181.

Friends of the Earth International is the world’s largest grassroots environmental network, uniting 71 diverse national member groups and some 5,000 local activist groups on every continent. With approximately 1.5 million members and supporters around the world, we campaign on today’s most urgent social and environmental issues. We challenge the current model of economic and corporate globalization, and promote solutions that will help to create environmentally sustainable and socially just societies.

http://www.foei.org/en/what-we-do/gmos/grassroots-highlights/contaminati...

Contaminated Corn in mexico

“This is the world’s worst case of contamination by genetically modified material because it happened in the place of origin of a major crop. It is confirmed. There is no doubt about it.”

Jorge Soberón, Secretary of Mexico’s National Biodiversity Commission, April 2002.

Contamination of corn in Oaxaca, Mexico, highlights the real threat that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) pose to the environment. Government legislation to prevent GMO contamination of the natural environment is likely to be challenged by the US in the World Trade Organization.

The contamination of native corn at its source of origin in Oaxaca, Mexico by transgenic corn was confirmed in September 2001. According to a Food First report, written by the ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration), “The location of the contamination is one of the world’s most valuable reservoirs of genetic material for plant breeding and a foundation for global food security.”

Mexico has had a moratorium on the planting of GMO corn since 1998. However, GMO corn was still being imported from the US, and farmers were probably unaware that they were planting genetically modified seeds. As Olga Toro Maaldonado, a Oaxacan farmer stated, “No one told us that we should not plant the corn.”

According to the Food First report, “this genetic pollution oses ‘significant potential risks’ that have not been fully and independently studied, such as genetic effects on local corn varieties as a result of cross-pollination by genetically modified plants, the largely unexplored health risks of eating GM foods, and potential ecological and crop management problems which may arise as modified traits pass from the GM crops to wild relatives. The ontamination could also potentially expose Mexican farmers to the risk of lawsuits for infringement of monopoly patents, and could threaten future opportunities to export untainted corn to GM-free markets in Europe and elsewhere.”

Contamination of corn in Oaxaca, Mexico, highlights the real threat that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) pose to the environment.

more information: Food First: www.foodfirst.org/media/press/2002/geneticpollution.html

God bless you,
M.John

Ghana and Togo: tackling the threat posed by GMO's in West Africa

The influx of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the West Africa subregion poses a grave and growing threat. Yet Ghana’s domestic national policy is very receptive to US influence, which is strongly pro-GMO. Furthermore, the close and growing political and diplomatic ties between Ghana and Togo extend this pro-GMO influence into Togo.

To combat this threat, a strong and coordinated civil society effort is required. These efforts must strive to protect biodiversity, as required under the Biodiversity Convention to which both Ghana and Togo are signatories. This is especially pertinent given lobbying efforts by western biotechnology institutions and their government backers with regard to Ghana’s Biosafety Bill, which has not yet been passed.

what happened: Friends of the Earth Ghana and Friends of the Earth Togo received funding to carry out joint capacity building, networking and campaigning on GMOs. Their goal was to protect traditional agriculture and the integrity of biodiversity through the establishment of responsible policy that discourages GMO introduction and ensures food security, food sovereignty and farmers’ rights to livelihoods. They also aimed to increase the effectiveness of the GMO campaign of Friends of the Earth International in terms of sustainable development targets and poverty reduction.

Key activities included reviewing current Biosafety Bill legislation. They also carried out awareness and skillshare workshops for institutions and members of the media. Finally, they held strategy meetings for campaigning and advocacy to build their network.

what is changing: This work has highlighted lapses in the Biosafety Bill. This information has made a positive contribution to media awareness, and countered information put forward by the government and its supporting external agencies, such as USAID, which promote GMOs in Africa.

This project also enhanced farmers’ awareness of the inadequacies in GMO policy, described by some farmers as a “policy trap”. Some farmers have used this information to question the source of seeds and whether they can be replanted – a line of questioning which could discourage GM seed entrepreneurs. In addition, the knowledge and capacity of FoE Ghana and its members was enhanced, and capacity was built for future collaboration. The project also fostered a closer relationship between members of the media between the two countries.

The gaps that the groups identified in the legislation were highlighted at engaging public debates in government-sponsored forums; furthermore, they were not countered by any convincing arguments from the government. The information from the FoE review is also available to other civil society groups, government agencies and individuals, to further enhance their capacity through information sharing, advocacy and outreach programs.

Although this work has not yet been reflected in the political landscape, the groups believe pressure from farmers, consumer groups and other stakeholders will be brought to bear on Ghana and Togo’s governments as anti-GMO momentum builds.

what we learned: This project has built FoE teams’ capacity on GMOs, and strengthened the connection between GMOs and other campaign issues under FoEI’s Economic Justice - Resisting Neoliberalism Program. They envision sustainable agriculture, desertification, gender and development as other areas of connection; this project has furthermore built enthusiasm to forge a synergy among these campaign issues, using the GMO campaign as a key entry point. The work done in this project also lends additional support to the regional African GMO campaign, of which FoE Ghana is an active member; FoE Ghana is now better able to provide strategic support for campaign planning and implementation to other regional groups.

However, this collaborative project faced challenges in terms of difficulty traveling between the two countries, imposed by poor roadways, language barriers, and border controls. This affected the project’s timeframes and planning. The groups realize that they face a significant challenge in terms of the Togo and Ghana governments’ very positive stance toward multinational business, a stance that makes them sympathetic to pro-GMO agri-business; thus far their governments have not indicated opposition to GMOs.

what next: FoE Ghana matched FoEI’s support for this project; however, FoE Ghana and FoE Togo are now seeking further funding for GMO campaigning from agencies in their countries. Another important goal is to further share the results of their policy review with FoEI members, as well as farmers, consumer associations, policy makers and academics.

http://www.foei.org/en/publications/annual-report/2007/what-we-achieved-...

LURED INTO ANOTHER CYCLE OF DEPENDANCY THROUGH "EVIL" SELF DESTRUCTIVE SEEDS

“The reality behind the shipment of GMO (genetically modified organisms) as food aid” to Africa .

4 march 2005

An aptly quoted piece from the Zambian Daily Mail formed this thematic poser of the gathering. “It is interesting to note that for the first time, Zambia was forced to accept a gift. Doesn't this worry us as recipients that the giver is insisting that we take the GM (genetically modified) foods? Are the Americans just concerned about our stomachs or there is something behind the gift,” ran the lines like a riddle in the November 5, 2002 edition of the daily. And participants tried to piece it together, drawing from the experiences of countries within Africa and beyond.

The overwhelming conclusion from the forum organised by Friends of the Earth (FoE) Africa , was that GMO are the manifestoes of a new colonialism, the surreptitious continuation of a political and economic tendency that is threatening all humanity. The controversy over GM foods in Africa began in 2000, but became topical in 2002, when several Southern African countries refused GM food aid despite calamitous food shortage.

The United States - which is the world's largest producer of GM foods - tried to push the argument that the choice for Africa 's starving populations was between GM food and hunger. But the FoE Africa Strategy Meeting made to explode the basis of the GMO exponents' arguments.

Mr Lopez Vilar Juan of Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) set the tone of the discussions with a blow-by-blow analysis of how GMO are a mere struggle against the right of farmers to save and reuse their seed. He said genetic engineering or modern biotechnology companies, led by Monsanto of United States, are out to take away control over crops from farmers and force them into a cycle of dependence since they would necessarily have to go back to the biotech companies for seed to plant. It is this trend that is currently being transferred to Africa , FoE warns.

In Africa , traditionally, at the end of each farming season, rolls of well-stocked barns adorn farmers' backyards, farmhouses, and storehouses, marking a smooth transition to the next planting season. People toil at sundry store places each day to preserve seeds that are used for the next planting season.

FoE says this right to return to the barn, rather than to Monsanto or some other modern biotech companies or market, for seed to replant is about to be taken away from the African farmer with the infiltration of GM crops that would sooner or later become the legal property of their producers after replacing traditional seeds on the African farmlands.

http://www.foei.org/en/media/archive/2005/gmoafrica.htm/?searchterm=GMO

LORD,DELIVER US FROM EVIL.

Food unfit for humans dumped on THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES:

http://www.foei.org/en/publications/corporates/clashes/gmoaid.html

“We are farmers who choose not to grow genetically engineered corn. Now it appears that our crops may not be safe from contamination from StarLink ... Biotech companies and federal regulators need to be a lot more careful with the genetic engineering genie – because once it’s out of the bottle, it’s near impossible to stuff it back in.” Peggy and George Naylor, Iowa, United States.

“It is unacceptable that the children of Nicaragua are consuming genetically modified products that come masked as food aid for our country. It is well known that baby food companies in the US and Europe do not use genetically modified products. Nevertheless, our highly-vulnerable condition has been used as an opportunity to send products that children in developed countries do not consume.” Victor Campos, FoE Nicaragua.

In 2000, Friends of the Earth US revealed the illegal presence of StarLink, genetically modified maize marketed by Aventis, in the human food chain although it had not been approved for human consumption. This discovery set off a chain of events that sent the US biotech industry into turmoil: reports of allergic reactions, recalls of numerous food products, discovery of StarLink in countries including Japan, and the forced buyback of StarLink from farmers by Aventis. Campaigners around the world reacted to this discovery, asking their governments to take measures to keep StarLink out of the national food supply.

Two years later, in June 2002, Friends of the Earth discovered the presence of illegal genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food donated to Latin American countries by USAID, the World Food Programme and other donor agencies. Civil society groups in Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Nicaragua criticized the spreading of contaminated food aid not fit for human consumption and illegal in many regulatory systems around the world, and demanded GMO-free food aid in the future.

The food aid sent to various countries included not only StarLink, but other unapproved strains of engineered corn: Liberty Link, also produced by Aventis, and Monsanto’s BtXtra and RoundUp Ready. In the United States, Friends of the Earth has asked the US administration to recall the corn and to require Aventis to cover any costs incurred by recalls and replacements.

Monsanto Rules the Fields

Monsanto is the largest GMO producer on the planet: 90 percent of the 140 million acres under biotech cultivation worldwide were sowed with the company’s corn and soy. For Monsanto and other biotech firms, profits rely heavily on consumer acceptance. Companies claim that they have foregone an estimated US$300 million in exports to Europe thanks to the EU’s moratorium.

This battle is not only about Europe: consumers and farmers across the globe are calling for local control over food and agriculture. The recent example of countries in southern Africa and elsewhere rejecting US food aid contaminated by GMOs illustrates the growing rejection of US attempts to force GMOs onto an unwilling global public.

Getting cosy with decision-makers

Given the profits at stake, its not surprising to find that Monsanto and the US agribusiness lobby have made a concerted effort to ensure that the US government protects corporate interests.

In the US, Monsanto’s close ties with the government are the result of money well spent: in 2000, the company dished out US$2,002,000 on lobbying and donated lavishly to well-placed politicians. This generosity appears to have paid off with direct access for Monsanto to US government officials and negotiators, as well as representation on the government’s Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee for Trade and the US Drug Administration’s Biotech Advisory Panel.

Monsanto is active in all of the major US agribusiness and biotech lobbies, including BIO, the US Grains Council, and the Food Industry Codex Coalition. All of these lobby groups are opposed to the EU’s protective stance on GMOs: BIO complains that the moratorium “threatens the viability of the global trading system”, and the US Grains Council and the National Corn Growers Association urged the US government to launch a WTO dispute against the EU due to its “hysterical” position on GMOs. Monsanto is also a member of Europabio, the main European biotechnology lobby group, which also argues that the moratorium is “indefensible”.

Monsanto has a close and powerful ally in the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), ranked by Fortune magazine as one of the most powerful organizations in Washington. Despite its cultivated appearance as a ‘grassroots farmers’ organization’, the AFBF has extensive corporate connections and its policy positions reflect the concerns of corporate agribusiness. The AFBF has repeatedly lobbied the US Administration to take action in the WTO against the EU’s GMO policies.

Monsanto’s high-level influence with the US government is strengthened by a ‘revolving door’ through which staff drift between industry and government. For example, Michael (Mickey) Kantor, a former Secretary of the US Department of Commerce and former US Trade Representative, is now a member of Monsanto’s Board of Directors. Michael Taylor, who previously worked as an attorney for Monsanto, was Deputy Commissioner for the US Food and Drug Administration when it controversially approved Monsanto’s BST milk-enhancing hormone, and later returned to Monsanto as a Vice President. These connections are not limited to the US Administration: Monsanto’s former Chief Counsel, Rufus Yerxa, was appointed deputy to the WTO Director General in August 2002. The Financial Times described Yerxa as “…just the man [the WTO Director General] will need should the US ever bleat to the WTO about EU restrictions on genetically modified food.”

These familial connections between Monsanto, the US government and the WTO doubtlessly facilitated the launching of the current dispute with the EU over GMOs.

The public launch of the trade war was covered with Monsanto’s fingerprints: several speakers at the press conference were linked to Monsanto, including the so-called “small farmer” from South Africa, who in fact regularly speaks on behalf of Monsanto at various pro-biotech platforms.

Tactics like this are a slap in the face to real small farmers, as well as consumers around the world, who will be the true losers if corporate interests are allowed to prevail in this food fight.

http://www.foei.org/en/publications/link/trade/8.html

GE crops don’t increase yield

One of the principle claims of the biotechnology industries is that GE crops increase yield. However that promise has proven to be empty, according to a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The report shows that, despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialisation, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase US crop yields.

"The biotech industry has spent billions on research and public relations hype, but genetically engineered food and feed crops haven't enabled American farmers to grow significantly more crops per acre of land," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a biologist in the UCS Food and Environment Program and author of the report. "In comparison, traditional breeding continues to deliver better results."

The report, Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops, is the first to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

This blog was interesting for a number of reasons. GMO is a gigantically important ethical issue but comes in under the radar most often. In my opinion the good Bishop, with a pastoral eye out in preferential option for the poor, poses fundamental questions. He goes right to the heart of assumptions: "I don't think they have the service of the poor on their agenda," and "If the multinationals just come in and take over, where does the profit go?" Ethics and GMO's should be concerned with more than safety of food produced, I'm convinced.

Months ago in some very small tidbit of "news" somewhere I read that developed countries (should I read "multinationals"?) are busy buying up gigantic swaths of remaining arable land in poorer countries for the purpose of insuring control of food in the coming years when their own countries are no longer have sustainable agriculture to feed their own people (I seem to recall China, Japan and others mentioned as some new landowners). If I remember correctly land has been purchased in Africa (I seem to remember Tanzania being mentioned), in South America (again memory pulls up "Brazil"). I really hope that the African Bishops address this issue as well; it's equally important to all the people of their lands (especially the poor). Sustainable/arable land is getting to have the importance that oil, diamonds, platinum and the other raw materials have had in the past. African Bishops should be wary of all types of exploitation.

What good will it do to make pronouncements pro or con about GMO crops if the crops are not those grown by Africans on their own farmlands in arable locations?

GMO is UNETHICAL and a SIN AGAINST THE POOR...
TERMINATOR SEEDS ARE USED IN BIOLOGICAL WARFARE TO "CONTROL" AND STARVE THE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES>

http://www.gmwatch.eu/archives/51-Latest-pro-GM-conference-at-Vatican.html

This is probably what Cardinal Renato Martino had in mind in his interview published in the L'Osservatore Romano on 1 January 2009 when he said that, "the responsibility for the food crisis is "in the hands of unscrupulous people who focus only on profit and certainly not on the well-being of all people." He went on to say that a more just system of distribution and not the manufacturing of genetically modified foods is the key to addressing the problem. "If one wants to pursue GMOs (genetically modified organisms) one can freely do so, but without hiding (the fact) that it's a way to make more profits."

At the ethical level I suggest that a technology which, according to Professor Richard Lewontin of Harvard University, "introduces a 'killer' transgene that prevents the germ of the harvested grain from developing," must be considered a grossly immoral act [3].

This technology is a sin against the poor and against previous generations of farmers who, from the beginning of agriculture freely shared their knowledge of plant life with their contemporaries, and with us.

It is a sin against the life spontaneities of nature itself and against the God of life and all creativity.

To deliberately set out to create seeds that self-destruct is an abomination that no society which calls itself civilized should tolerate.

If anything went wrong the terminator gene could spread to other plants and jeopardize food security.

No wonder many people look on terminator seeds as a form of biological warfare on subsistence farmers. Terminator technology has not yet been incorporated into commercial seeds, but each year the biotech corporations try to get it accepted by regulators.

Notes:

1. Brittenden, Wayne, "Terminator seeds threaten a barren future for farmers,"

2. Quoted in John Vidal, "Mr. Terminator Ploughs in," The Guardian, 14 April 1998. page 14.

3. Jean-Pierre Berlan and Richard C.Lewontin, "It's business as usual", The Guardian," 22 February 1999, page 14.