Anti-GM protesters kept from tearing up wheat crop by police

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Police kept hundreds of protesters at bay as they attempted to destroy a field where genetically modified wheat is being tested in Hertfordshire.

Mounted officers helped bring activists to a halt in front of the entrance to land owned by the Rothamsted research institute, which is testing GM wheat which has been enhanced to fight aphid infestation.

The event on Sunday, which attracted hundreds of protesters including farmers, politicians and activists from the UK and abroad, had prompted the local council to obtain an order making it a criminal offence to trespass on the land.

Hertfordshire police handed out leaflets at Harpenden station warning that St Albans council had forbidden "trespassory assembly" under section 14A of the Public Order Act as anti-GM campaigners gathered in a park next to the estate.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/27/anti-gm-protesters-police-rothamsted

[enki23]

1. It's hard to have symptathy for idiots who attack publically funded research institutes.

[zeemike]

3. It's not hare for me.

But then I feel public funded institutions should not be promoting GM foods with public money.

[enki23]

4. And atuism nuts "feel" that vaccines are evil. So what?

Plenty of things in the world deserve burning down. Public research into aphid-resistant wheat sure as *hell* isn't among them. I have zero patience for anti-science fools and all the assorted conspiracy nuts.

[zeemike]

5. No one forces you to take the vaccine

But you cannot and will not be able not to eat GM foods...unless you can afford to eat only organic foods...and even then you really don't know...
And if a plant kills aphids that eat it...what does it do to you?....I would like public funded institutions to investigate that...but they can't

[Posteritatis]

7. I wasn't aware "public funded institutions" were such a monolith. (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. It doesn't kill aphids - it's like an aphid 'alarm' phermone

Our approach has been to use an odour, or “alarm pheromone”, which aphids produce to alert one another to danger. This odour is also produced by some plants as a natural defence mechanism, not only repelling aphids but attracting their natural enemies, such as ladybirds. The ultimate goal is to explore new ways to help promote environmentally friendly agriculture, by seeing if we can get crops to defend themselves, so they do not have to be sprayed with pesticides.
...
But our wheat is something different. It has been engineered to produce a smelly chemical – well, smelly to aphids – that already occurs widely and is known in over 400 plant species. This method has behavioural rather than toxic effects on insects, by making the aphid fly away in disgust. Also, unlike current pesticides (which can kill all insects, friend or foe), our technique may actually attract beneficial insects to the crop. This technique cannot create superweeds.

Another argument put forward by the protest group is that there is no market for this type of GM wheat. While we are not producing a commercial crop in this experiment, if it does work, and if anyone did choose to commercialise this kind of approach, it would probably take another 10 years before a product could come to market. Research takes a long time – and rightly so, in order that we can test everything methodically, accurately and responsibly.

Finally, we have been accused of producing a product with a cow gene in our experimental wheat. We used synthetic genes, which is a standard procedure for modern molecular biology experiments. The synthetic form of the gene we used encodes a protein that happens to be most similar to that found in cows, but is not significantly different to the versions found in nearly all other organisms. It is not a “cow gene”. We are also doing the experiment with another line that contains a synthetic gene most similar to a peppermint gene.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/9281863/GM-vandals-are-shutting-down-scientific-debate.html

[yellowcanine]

49. Plants produce all kinds of defensive chemicals. Scientists study them for effects on human health.

Lots of investigations on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory

[EFerrari]

6. Your factually grounded argment is persuasive. n/t

[rayofreason]

9. 100% agree. n/t

[harmonicon]

13. +1 (nt)

[proverbialwisdom]

17. Oh, please, don't mislead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/25/business/25FOOD.html?pagewanted=all

Biotechnology Food: From the Lab to a Debacle

By KURT EICHENWALD, GINA KOLATA and MELODY PETERSEN
Published: January 25, 2001

The following article was reported by Kurt Eichenwald, Gina Kolata and Melody Petersen and was written by Mr. Eichenwald

In late 1986, four executives of the Monsanto Company, the leader in agricultural biotechnology, paid a visit to Vice President George Bush at the White House to make an unusual pitch.

Although the Reagan administration had been championing deregulation across multiple industries, Monsanto had a different idea: the company wanted its new technology, genetically modified food, to be governed by rules issued in Washington — and wanted the White House to champion the idea.

"There were no products at the time," Leonard Guarraia, a former Monsanto executive who attended the Bush meeting, recalled in a recent interview. "But we bugged him for regulation. We told him that we have to be regulated."

Government guidelines, the executives reasoned, would reassure a public that was growing skittish about the safety of this radical new science. Without such controls, they feared, consumers might become so wary they could doom the multibillion-dollar gamble that the industry was taking in its efforts to redesign plants using genes from other organisms — including other species.

In the weeks and months that followed, the White House complied, working behind the scenes to help Monsanto — long a political power with deep connections in Washington — get the regulations that it wanted.

It was an outcome that would be repeated, again and again, through three administrations. What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto — and, by extension, the biotechnology industry — got. If the company's strategy demanded regulations, rules favored by the industry were adopted. And when the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy of self-policing.

Even longtime Washington hands said that the control this nascent industry exerted over its own regulatory destiny — through the Environmental Protection Agency, the Agriculture Department and ultimately the Food and Drug Administration — was astonishing.

"In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do," said Dr. Henry Miller, a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, who was responsible for biotechnology issues at the Food and Drug Administration from 1979 to 1994.

More...

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/fraud/faulty-regulations/An-FDA-Created-Health-Crisis-Circles-the-Globe-October-2007

Spilling the Beans, October 2007

The FDA’s “non-regulation” of GM foods

Genetically modified crops are the result of a technology developed in the 1970s that allow genes from one species to be forced into the DNA of unrelated species. The inserted genes produce proteins that confer traits in the new plant, such as herbicide tolerance or pesticide production. The process of creating the GM crop can produce all sorts of side effects, and the plants contain proteins that have never before been in the food supply. In the US, new types of food substances are normally classified as food additives, which must undergo extensive testing, including long-term animal feeding studies.[4] If approved, the label of food products containing the additive must list it as an ingredient.

There is an exception, however, for substances that are deemed “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS). GRAS status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods had neither. Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move that some experts contend was illegal, in 1992 the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labels whatsoever. A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.

Such a lenient approach to GM crops was largely the result of Monsanto’s legendary influence over the US government. According to the New York Times, “What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto and, by extension, the biotechnology industry got. . . . When the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy of self-policing.” According to Dr. Henry Miller, who had a leading role in biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994, “In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.”

Following Monsanto’s lead, in 1992 the Council on Competitiveness chaired by Vice President Dan Quayle identified GM crops as an industry that could increase US exports. On May 26, Quayle announced “reforms” to “speed up and simplify the process of bringing” GM products to market without “being hampered by unnecessary regulation.”[5] Three days later, the FDA policy on non-regulation was unveiled.

More...

•Washington Post – Immune Systems Increasingly on the Attack

Tuesday, March 4, 2008
...First, asthma cases shot up, along with hay fever and other common allergic reactions, such as eczema. Then, pediatricians started seeing more children with food allergies. Now, experts are increasingly convinced that a suspected jump in lupus, multiple sclerosis and other afflictions caused by misfiring immune systems is real.


•Los Angeles Times – 4% of Children have Food Allergies

November 17, 2009
...The number of children who have food allergies is not only increasing, it now encompasses 4% of all kids in the United States, according to an analysis of four large, national surveys published Monday in the journal Pediatrics.

The study -- the first to make a broad estimate about the prevalence of food allergies among U.S. children -- supports previous studies suggesting that allergy rates are rising rapidly, for reasons that are unclear.


•Los Angeles Times - Chronic health conditions increasing in children, study finds

February 17, 2010
...More than a quarter of all U.S. children have a chronic health condition, new research suggests, a significant increase from the rate seen in earlier decades and a statistic that looms large for the nation's efforts to subdue rising healthcare costs....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030303200.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-allergies17-2009nov17,0,7452917.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-child-health17-2010feb17,0,456579.story
.

[NickB79]

23. This research is in the UK. What does the FDA and Washington DC

have to do with it?

[proverbialwisdom]

25. Big business, altruism? Read this reporting, though it sounds like a fictional political thriller.

Featuring a multinational corporation based in the US and alleged intervention at the highest level of government in two countries...

http://www.psrast.org/pusztblair.htm

From an article in the UK newspaper "Daily Mail" (july 2003) it appears that Prime Minister Tony Blair was instigated by President Clinton to stop Pusztai.

Excerpt :

"Breaking his long silence over the affair, he [Pusztai] now claims that he was fired as a direct consequence of Tony Blair's intervention. The day after his World In Action broadcast, he believes that two phone calls were put through to his boss, Philip James, from the Prime Minister's office in Downing Street.

The following day he was fired. He says he was informed of the calls by two different employees at the Rowett. Dr Putsztai and his wife were also told by a senior manager at the institute that Blair's intervention followed a phone call to Downing Street from President Bill Clinton, whose administration was spending billions backing the GM food industry. To sceptical ears, this sounds scarcely credible. Would the Prime Minister really have had any influence over the position of a respected scientist?

And yet the story is supported by two other eminent researchers. Stanley Ewen, says another senior figure at the institute told him the same story at a dinner on September 24, 1999.

'That conversation is sealed in my mind,' Ewen says. 'My jaw dropped to the floor. I suddenly saw it all - it was the missing link.

'Until then, I couldn't understand how on Monday Arpad had made the most wonderful breakthrough, and on Tuesday it was the most dreadful piece of work and immediately rejected out of hand.'

The second source to confirm the story is Professor Robert Orskov OBE, who worked at the Rowett for 33 years and is one of Britain's leading nutrition experts. He was told that phone calls went from Monsanto, the American firm which produces 90% of the world's GM food, to Clinton and then to Blair.

'Clinton rang Blair and Blair rang James,' says Professor Orskov.

'There is no doubt he was pushed by Blair to do something. It was damaging the relationship between the USA and the UK, because it was going to be a huge blow for Monsanto.'

Source: "The sinister sacking of the world’s leading GM expert – and the trail that leads to Tony Blair and the White House. By Andrew Rowell. Daily Mail July 7, 2003.
Original source link broken. Article cited in THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MONSANTO by Marie-Monique Robinaccording to Google search.

ONLINE (I've declined to read it myself): http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/biotech/ar_sinister_sacking.html

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11313-gmwatch-launches-new-myth-busting-website

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Interview_with_Arpad_Pusztai_on_his_experimental_findings_on_GM_potatoes

[proverbialwisdom]

45. NOTE: Posts #23 and #25 refer to Dr. Arpad Pusztai's work in the UK described in post #18.

[proverbialwisdom]

18. Suppression of science free of conflict of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/anniversary-of-a-whistleb_b_675817.html

Anniversary of a Whistleblowing Hero

By Jeffrey Smith.
Posted: August 9, 2010 01:40 PM

Here's why this is unacceptable. Watch the TEDx Austin talk.

http://www.robynobrien.com/speaking.html

“Robyn’s analysis is a startling revelation of the corruption of our food supply and our failure to protect two of our country’s most valuable assets, our children and our environment. Her message of courage, tenacity and hope is a beacon of light in our toxic world."
—Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Robyn recently addressed a crowd of 600 at TEDx Austin and received a standing ovation for her presentation, "Patriotism on a Plate" as seen in the VIDEO:

http://allergykids.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/a-ripple-of...

A Ripple of Hope: When Courage and Conscience Collide

June 10, 2008
by Robyn O'Brien

I was raised on capitalism and the Wall Street Journal. As a child, my family celebrated the birth of Reaganomics the way one would have celebrated the birth of a child. There was prosperity to be had by all – if only we believed. My father, like so many of his era, fully supported deregulation and the notion of trickle down economics. If we loosen the regulatory purse strings that government tightly controls, we will all prosper. The system works.

In our house, the Reagans had an almost royal status – to watch them dance, with Nancy in her red dress, gave me the feeling, as a child, that I was watching some magnificent combination of Frank Sinatra and a foreign prince with his graceful companion on his arm.

I trusted my political values would serve me well – I was loyal, patriotic and supported the system.

And then one of my children got sick. With a blood condition that no one could pronounce and a pediatric mandate requiring immediate enrollment at a Children's Hospital. And I awoke.

Suddenly, everywhere I turned, there were sick children. Children with diabetes, children with cancer, children with obesity, children with asthma and children with allergies. What had happened?

As headlines in the paper warned me of environmental dangers, I began to pay attention. What was in the food? Wasn't organics a left-leaning thing? And what about the plastics and the baby bottles and the vaccines? Should I worry? Doesn't our system protect us from these dangers?

And without realizing it, an internal battle had silently begun.

I lay awake at night as I tried to reconcile the loyalty I had to my father with the loyalty I had to my children. Had a generation of grandfathers failed to recognize the health risks associated with capitalism's profits, unintentionally jeopardizing the well being of their grandchildren?

I had been raised to support the system, to believe in it, to never question it, and certainly to never speak out. Activism was something that "radicals" did, certainly not conservative soccer moms.

But I couldn't shake the internal dialogue. And armed with an MBA in finance and my four children, I began to investigate the expanding role that corporations had taken in the system in which I was raised to believe. And I was stunned.

There were insecticidal toxins engineered into crops to increase profitability for the world's largest agrichemical corporation – a company whose former employees included Donald Rumsfeld and Clarence Thomas. There were petroleum based chemicals in my children's toys and shampoos that were a product of an oil corporation that had recruited me in business school. How had this happened? Had we forsaken our physical health for financial wealth?

As I struggled with the responsibility that I felt for betraying my own children, I realized that it was now my responsibility to act. But the internal battle raged on – as the call from my conscience collided with the familiar comfort of conformity – and I was paralyzed.

But with sick children, paralysis was not an option.

I realized that I had to find the courage, on behalf of my children and others, to speak out against the very system in which I was raised.

And I reluctantly stepped forward.

With the words of another crusader in hand, I found my voice: "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls." (Robert F. Kennedy).

It is with that hope, and holding the hands of my four children, that I took a stand.

Our world is changing. Our children's voices are not being heard; there is no "show of hands" to gauge their reactions to the impact that our environment is having on them.

It is our turn to engage, to help our fathers recreate the world that their grandchildren deserve. We must not be daunted by the enormity of the task at hand, nor fear political "activism". For the sake of our children, it is our political responsibility.

If you take just one step forward, it might send forth that tiny ripple of hope that will touch your daughter's life years later or your son's health in ways you might never foresee.

If we dare to dream that it is possible to affect this change for our children, we will be inspired by hope and find the courage and capacity to act. Together.

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1949482

[proverbialwisdom]

20. Another grossly misleading oversimplification. Not up to speed? FORBES on the CDC here.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gerganakoleva/2012/05/11/revised-recommendations-for-vaccines-are-being-phased-in-cdc-report-says/

Revised Recommendations for Vaccines Are Being Phased In, CDC Report Says

5/11/2012 @ 5:01PM |2,312 views

112 comments

Can vaccines be more useful for some people than for others?

Until now, most physicians have recommended immunizations for all infants and children, as well as for adults at various ages who may have missed shots. But new guidelines that take into account the strength of scientific evidence and individual health to determine whether specific vaccines should be recommended or simply optional for patients are being used in medicine for the first time, a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.

The recommendations are based on a framework for evaluating science used by more than 60 major organizations, including the American College of Physicians and the World Health Organization, and will each fall in one of two categories, reflective of evidence that a vaccine is essential to good health. Category A recommendations will include vaccinations considered necessary for all people of a certain age or those who are at an increased risk for contracting a vaccine-preventable disease. Category B recommendations will provide guidance to physicians in the context of individual cases where patients with varying health conditions may or may not benefit from a vaccine.

More.

The new rules are modeled after an existing system for evaluating scientific evidence, called Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), in which the evidence backing each intervention is ranked according to type and quality. The recommendation categories are based on those rankings. For example, randomized controlled trials, considered the gold standard in generating scientific evidence, are ranked highest and warrant instructions to doctors that a vaccine “should” be administered, whereas clinical experience without consistent results is used for suggesting that a vaccine “may” benefit patients.

The move toward standardizing recommendations is expected to improve transparency, consistency, and communication in the health care setting and between physicians and their patients.

The news update was published this week in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.


Gergana Koleva, Contributor
I write about the intersection of consumer fraud, bioethics and health

Related thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002312035#post101

[Jeffreytaos]

10. Keep your pollen out of my fields!

they can experiment until their experiment destroys my right to be free of their pollen. I support the Luddites!

[zeemike]

12. Welcome Jeffery...

And I know what Taos is...thanks for your support.

[Igel]

15. So can I sue my neighbors for their grass pollen?

Or the company that owns the land nearby for goldenrod?

After all, I have a right to be free of their pollen.

[proverbialwisdom]

34. Bingo, but only if you own the pollen patent.

I was completely unaware of GMOs and the plight of farmers before reading this article four years ago.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

INVESTIGATION

May 2008

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear

Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.

by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele

Gary Rinehart clearly remembers the summer day in 2002 when the stranger walked in and issued his threat. Rinehart was behind the counter of the Square Deal, his “old-time country store,” as he calls it, on the fading town square of Eagleville, Missouri, a tiny farm community 100 miles north of Kansas City.

The Square Deal is a fixture in Eagleville, a place where farmers and townspeople can go for lightbulbs, greeting cards, hunting gear, ice cream, aspirin, and dozens of other small items without having to drive to a big-box store in Bethany, the county seat, 15 miles down Interstate 35.

Everyone knows Rinehart, who was born and raised in the area and runs one of Eagleville’s few surviving businesses. The stranger came up to the counter and asked for him by name.

“Well, that’s me,” said Rinehart.

As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company’s patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him—or face the consequences.

Rinehart was incredulous, listening to the words as puzzled customers and employees looked on. Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn’t a farmer. He wasn’t a seed dealer. He hadn’t planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small—a really small—country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. “It made me and my business look bad,” he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, “You got the wrong guy.”

When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.”

Scenes like this are playing out in many parts of rural America these days as Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers’ co-ops, seed dealers—anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically modified seeds. As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics.

<...>

SEE: Supreme Court case 12/2001 written by Justice Thomas, former Monsanto attorney, appointed by GHW Bush. And the hearings focused on alleged misconduct with Anita Hill? Pitiful.

[proverbialwisdom]

57. Correction: they could sue YOU for their pollen on your property if they own the pollen patent.

[Posteritatis]

8. Yep. (nt)

[Jeffreytaos]

11. Research?

it's obviously not supported by the general public. How dare you call me an idiot! Perhaps you will eat anything on a plate served with a fork and knife, but I won't, nor will I feed my children this garbage that is produced at the expense of starving farmers worldwide. if I plant a field next to your farm that threatens your right to grow your way, wouldn't you feel a bit threatened, or would you then say some idiots are trying to destroy your livelihood. Name calling is juvenile and will not further this discussion or your right to promote GMO foods, which threaten farmers worldwide.

[harmonicon]

14. Is all bold the new all caps? (nt)

[KansDem]

50. I was wondering the same thing...

And what about bold and caps?

TESTING... TESTING...

Wow! Feel the power under you fingers!

[harmonicon]

52. DU is not ready for the massive power of bold + caps. (nt)

[4th law of robotics]

26. Science that some people don't support = not really science?

So if some creationists decided to burn down an institute because they felt research in to evolution was offensive to them that would be ok?

[Scootaloo]

2. The Grahamites are staging a field burning. Someone inform AgriGen

[NickB79]

24. Bring your kink-spring guns.

Make sure you're carrying extra clips of disk blades.

[Scootaloo]

55. I was hoping it wouldn't fly over everyone's head!

Best sci-fi book I've read in years

[James48]

16. Read the headline....

thought it was about the car company.


Silly me.

[proverbialwisdom]

19. More here: http://taketheflourback.org/

[may3rd]

22. Obama to unveil plan for helping African farmers

.....
..He will also announce a new partnership of agribusiness giants such as DuPont, Monsanto and Cargill, along with smaller companies including almost 20 from Africa, which will commit some $3 billion for projects to help farmers in the developing world build local markets and improve productivity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014123954#post8

[proverbialwisdom]

31. Sad. "We know that their primary goal is not anybody’s food security but their own bottom line."

http://www.alternet.org/environment/155559/how_the_us_sold_africa_to_multinationals_like_monsanto,_cargill,_dupont,_pepsico_and_others_?page=entire

AlterNet / By Jill Richardson

How the US Sold Africa to Multinationals Like Monsanto, Cargill, DuPont, PepsiCo and Others

The G8 scheme does nothing to address the problems that are at the core of hunger and malnutrition but will serve only to further poverty and inequality...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/21-5

Published on Monday, May 21, 2012 by Common Dreams

Don’t Put Monsanto in Charge of Ending Hunger in Africa

by Yifat Susskind

This past weekend, President Obama hid out from protesters at Camp David. He was hosting the leaders of the world’s eight wealthiest economies, known as the G8. As they readied to meet, on Friday, Obama put forward his New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.

This occasion gave Rajiv Shah, the administrator of the US Agency for International Development, the chance to make an astonishing statement:

“We are never going to end hunger in Africa without private investment. There are things that only companies can do, like building silos for storage and developing seeds and fertilizers.”

That’s news to millions of women farmers in Africa. Their harvests feed their families and generate income that sustains local economies. For generations, they have been doing just those things: storing their harvests, protecting and developing seeds, using natural fertilizers.

Smallholder women farmers save and exchange seeds that help keep local crops viable. They demonstrate how to adapt to climate change by adjusting planting cycles, experimenting with new drought-resistant crops and more. They produce crucial food supplies using the small-scale, organic methods that are increasingly recognized as vital to the health of the planet—and everyone who lives on it.

There are differences, of course. Unlike big companies, small-scale women farmers do not grab millions of acres of land for monoculture plantations that destroy local biodiversity. They do not develop the terminator seeds that hold farmers hostage to the seed patent rights of corporations. They are not the inventors of chemical fertilizers that worsen climate change.

Those honors belong to the very companies that President Obama is inviting to oversee Africa’s food security. We know that their primary goal is not anybody’s food security but their own bottom line. That’s why it’s governments, and not corporations like Monsanto, that should bear responsibility for funding and developing agriculture. It is simply not true that only companies can build silos and develop seeds and fertilizers.

President Obama anticipated these criticisms when he addressed “whether this New Alliance is just a way for governments to shift the burden onto somebody else.” He was quick to assure that, even in hard economic times, his administration would continue to make investments in development aid. Let’s make sure that those investments work to prioritize the right to food over corporate profits.

Because here’s the truth: we’re never going to end hunger in Africa without upholding the rights of smallholder women farmers who feed the continent and care for its ecosystems.

Yifat Susskind is the Executive Director of MADRE, an international women's human rights organization. She has worked with women’s human rights activists from Latin America, the Middle East, Asia and Africa to create programs in their communities to address women's health, violence against women, economic and environmental justice and peace building. She has also written extensively on US foreign policy and women’s human rights and her critical analysis has appeared in online and print publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Foreign Policy in Focus and The W Effect: Bush’s War on Women, published by the Feminist Press in 2004. Ms. Susskind has been featured as a commentator on CNN, National Public Radio, and BBC Radio.

[proverbialwisdom]

32. Again, "Unlike big companies, small-scale women farmers do NOT grab millions of acres of land

...for monoculture plantations that destroy local biodiversity."

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/21-5

[WriteWrong]

43. He can't have it both ways. Either help Africa or help agribusiness, but they're mutually exclusive

[may3rd]

21. Is this a Monsanto lab experiment destined to african farmers?

some people have issues with corporate farming experiments and yet,
want to "feed the world"
just saying.

[bemildred]

28. Says enhanced to fight aphids, hence it makes its own bug spray, hence, yeah Monsanto,

or something very Monsanto-like.

[boppers]

29. No, it makes the natural bug "ew, don't eat this" scent that 400 other plants already do.

Monsanto's primary product, Roundup crops, don't do squat about bugs. They're herbicides, not pesticides: They fight weeds, not bugs.

[4th law of robotics]

30. I think a lot of people are not interested in the science

GM = Monsanto = forcing all plants to produce toxins that turn people inside out.

There are no other possibilities.

[boppers]

33. A lot of people had poor science educations.

Along with a lack of courses in logic and math.

Sad, really.

[proverbialwisdom]

35. Nice summary of absence of consensus among FDA scientists described in 2001 legal brief at link.

http://www.purefood.org/gefood/fdasued.cfm

Legal & Scientific Critique of FDA's "No Labeling, No SafetyTesting" Policy on GE Foods

This public comment letter on the FDA's proposed regulation of GMOs is a
must read. Please pass it on to anyone interested in the GMO issue.
Druker is an attorney who filed a public interest lawsuit against the FDA
over lack of safety regulations, phony substantial equivalance and other
unfounded regulations. People need to know just how biotech foods got
regulatory approval. It's shocking!

Comments prepared by Steven M. Druker, Executive Director [Alliance for
Bio-Integrity]

2 May 2001

[Docket No. 00N-1396]
Dockets Management Branch [HFA-305]
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane
Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852

To Whom It May Concern:

The Alliance for Bio-Integrity (ABI) provides the following comments
in response to the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and
Drug Administration's ("FDA&quot "Premarket Notice Concerning
Bioengineered Foods" 66 Fed. Reg. 4706 (January 18, 2001).

In submitting these comments, the Alliance for Bio-Integrity
incorporates by reference all documents submitted to the District
Court and the FDA (including the complaint, legal briefs, and
declarations) and all the assertions made therein, as well as the
administrative record provided by the FDA, in the case of Alliance
for Bio-Integrity, et al, v. Shalala, et al, Docket No. 98-1300 (CKK)
(filed May 27, 1998).

More specifically, ABI finds the new FDA proposal to be not only
inadequate and contrary to the best scientific knowledge, but (a)
contrary to the clear intent of U.S. law and (b) based on
misrepresentation. Further, ABI maintains that a full consideration
of the evidence makes it difficult to believe that these
misrepresentations are innocent mistakes but instead strongly
indicates they are fraudulent and are part of a calculated,
systematic endeavor to deceive Congress and the American people about
the potential health hazards of bioengineered foods (commonly
referred to as "genetically engineered" or "GE" foods). This
statement is not made lightly but is based on thorough knowledge of
the facts, and it is prompted by a belief that such behavior on the
part of the agency entrusted with assuring the safety of the nation's
food must be clearly categorized as wrong, directly confronted, and
promptly corrected.

The following paragraphs explain in detail why the FDA's behavior in
permitting the marketing of bioengineered foods is so unscientific,
unethical, and unacceptable - and why the proposed regulations must
be withdrawn and every bioengineered food withheld from the market
until proper testing has confirmed it is safe according to the
standard required by law...

[boppers]

40. FUD

[proverbialwisdom]

41. Fear, uncertainty, doubt? How about independent FDA scientists being overruled by bureaucrats?

Excerpts from the legal brief above, revisit the history of FDA approval.

http://www.purefood.org/gefood/fdasued.cfm

I. FDA's Claim That GE Foods Are Generally Recognized As Safe is False and Fraudulent

A. The Required Level of Consensus is Very High

As the FDA's regulations prescribe and the federal courts have decreed, general recognition of safety can only be imputed if there is an overwhelming consensus in the community of qualified experts. While unanimity is not required, a significant disagreement prevents a determination that consensus exists. (62 Fed. Reg. At 18939.) Further, it takes only a few experts to provide the requisite level of disagreement.

For instance, in United States v. Seven Cartons. Ferro-Lac, 293 F. Supp. 660, 664 (N.D. Il. 1968)* the court agreed with the FDA that there was not general recognition of safety, based solely on the affidavits of two scientists who said that they were not aware of any studies in the pharmacological-toxicological literature on the intended use of the substance.

*Modified on other grounds, 424 F.2d 136 (7th Cir. 1970)

B. There Was Sufficient Doubt About the Safety of GE Foods Within the FDA's Own Scientific Staff to Nullify GRAS Status

Prior to the FDA's issuance of its May 1992 policy statement presuming that GE foods are generally recognized as safe (GRAS), its own experts had expressed concerns about the unique potential health hazards of these new foods in numerous memos to agency decision-makers. The pervasiveness of the concerns within the scientific staff is attested by a memo from an FDA official stating:

"The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." (FDA Administrative Record (hereinafter "A.R.&quot at 18,953.) Quotations from many of the FDA scientists are in the briefs we submitted to the court in the previously mentioned lawsuit.

The FDA has the original memos in its possession, and photocopies of over twenty key ones are on our website http://www.biointegrity.org/

Further, although the District Court upheld the FDA on narrow technical grounds in the lawsuit, it acknowledged that concerns had been raised by the FDA experts, and it did not state that the required level of disagreement was lacking. Rather, the court ruled that the upper level administrators had discretion to disregard their experts in making a GRAS determination.

Even if this ruling is correct (which is highly dubious), it is still the case that the overwhelming opinion of the FDA experts was that no GE food can be presumed safe unless it has been confirmed so through rigorous toxicological feeding studies.

C. The FDA Knows There Has Never Been Expert Consensus About the Safety of GE Foods

In 1992, when the FDA issued its formal presumption that GE foods are GRAS, it was well aware that not only were they not recognized as safe by its own experts but that there was in fact no consensus in the scientific community at large. This lack of consensus was
clearly acknowledged by Dr. James Maryanski, FDA's Biotechnology Coordinator, in a letter to a Canadian official on October 23, 1991. (A.R. at 22925)

Moreover, the FDA is also well aware that substantial disagreement in the scientific community about the safety of GE foods not only continues but is broadening and intensifying - and that it is more than enough to prevent these products from qualifying as GRAS. The mere fact that nine well-credentialed experts joined our lawsuit as plaintiffs and asserted they viewed GE foods as inherently more hazardous than their conventional counterparts was in itself sufficient evidence that the legally required level of consensus does not exist. The District Court clearly acknowledged the lack of consensus by stating: "Plaintiffs have produced several documents showing significant disagreements among scientific experts."

However, it said that because it was specifically reviewing FDA's policy decision of 1992, it was restricted to consider only the information the FDA had before it at that time. However, even if the court was correct in concluding that all evidence since May 1992 was irrelevant for purposes of that particular legal action (a conclusion that appears seriously flawed), it in no way told the FDA it had license to ignore such evidence in making its decisions after that date. But that is precisely what the FDA persists in doing. It systematically disregards the extensive evidence demonstrating the existence of significant expert disagreement about the safety of GE foods that has been presented to it by our lawsuit, at the series of public meetings it held in 1999, and through other formal channels; it pretends that this evidence is somehow nonexistent; and it gives the false impression in its public pronouncements that there is overwhelming consensus about safety.

More at link.

Tedious, nauseating and infuriating.

[boppers]

42. Kooks don't get to run the show.

If you don't want to eat GMO foods, fine, just stop eating anything with corn, or soy.

Or anything that is fed with corn, or soy.

Done.

While you're at it, you might want to avoid all the crops humans have been tampering with: Rice, Wheat, Potatoes, Tomatoes, Peppers, Berries, Squashes, heck, anything "farmed".

Just live off the land. In the woods.

[Nihil]

44. They already are running the show ...

... but their particular brand of "kookiness" is for short-term profit with zero regard
for the future ...

> If you don't want to eat GMO foods, fine, just stop eating anything with corn, or soy.
> Or anything that is fed with corn, or soy.
> Done.

Or move to a country where the lawmakers and environmental agencies care
more about people's health than the [s]bribes[/s] donations from agricultural companies.


> While you're at it, you might want to avoid all the crops humans have been tampering
> with: Rice, Wheat, Potatoes, Tomatoes, Peppers, Berries, Squashes, heck, anything "farmed".

More bullshit from someone who doesn't understand the difference between
selection and injection - or who wants to pretend that there isn't a difference
for propaganda purposes.

[boppers]

46. Selection is a slow method to find vertical mutations, variants, and interesting gene transfers.

"Injection" is another way of saying Horizontal Gene Transfers, which is a naturally occurring (and lab duplicated) phenomena where genes from totally different species jump to other, vastly different, organisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

Sure, it may seem unusual to think that conceptually "hey, I'm part fish, part bacteria, part apple tree", but we now know that's a part of how genetic diversity works.

Of course, this is a fairly new discovery (first noticed in the 1950's, only really studied in Eukaryotes in the last ten years), so it's a bit unnerving to folks who are steeped in textbooks dominated by Mendelian inheritance. It seems "dangerous" and "unnatural", because so much of our educational system hasn't caught up, and many people stop learning science once they leave school.

[Nihil]

47. I apologise.

Still don't agree with your blurring of the lines in that post but my "bullshit" comment was wrong.

[boppers]

54. We argue in many ways.

Apology not needed, but accepted for decorum's sake.

[proverbialwisdom]

48. You really want to go there? How's the health ofAmerica's children since the introduction of gmos?

Is a visible natural selection process underway as a consequence of the novel environmental challenges posed by biotech food?

Humans did NOT evolve with these patented (therefore NEW) consumed products, and yet adequate animal feeding studies were NOT performed as they were designated "substantially equivalent," hence, &quot GRAS) generally regarded as safe."

Pretzel logic.

[boppers]

53. The kids are fat, happy, and able to survive a famine.

Obese, even.

[yellowcanine]

51. Not really selection vs injection.

All plant breeding involves selection of one sort or another. The trick is to get new genes/traits to work with. In traditional plant breeding this was done by making controlled crosses followed by selection and then often more crosses known as backcrosses until the desired gene had been introduced into the selection and the selection was genetically stable. With GMO what is different is that techniques are used which allow a wider selection of genes to be introduced. The traditional GMO technique involved using a "vector", such as certain kinds of bacteria or viruses. Now indeed microinjection techniques are used. The GMO techniques greatly speed up plant breeding because it is much easier to introduce single genes into plants and thus many of the selection and backcrossing steps are eliminated, but not entirely. And of course it is possible to introduce genes from organisms which would not naturally cross. However, in terms of safety GMO actually has some advantages. Because it is so much easier to introduce single genes, there is actually a lower probability of introducing "bad" genes into varieties and the genetics of the new variety is much better understood.

[WriteWrong]

38. Roundup-ready crops do NOT fight weeds. They resist being poisoned by a broad-spectrum herbicide

Which said herbicide is gradually building up a longer and longer list of documented toxic effects on the environment, and on people.

Which said procedure, as a whole, is now proving not to fight weeds at all, but to damage plants and insects miles away from the ostensible location of the stuff. Another bad idea in the process of failing... but I suppose we can wait for the bitter end, like we usually do.

[boppers]

39. You are correct about "Roundup(c)(TM)" crops being resistant to an herbicide.

...and yes, over-dosing crops (and their runoff) with said herbicide has become a problem.

If only farmers could, you know, pay people to pull weeds.... *sigh*.

[proverbialwisdom]

36. Senate defeats attempt to study genetically engineered salmon.

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/05/24/senate-defeats-attempt-to-label-genetically-engineered-salmon/

Senate Defeats Attempt to Study Genetically Engineered Salmon

By Carolyn Lochhead
San Francisco Chronicle, May 24, 2012

The Senate Thursday defeated an amendment, 45-50, by Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to require comprehensive environmental study of what she called a “test tube” salmon before the government approves it for the food supply.

California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, voted for the amendment. The split was not along the usual ideological lines.

The salmon would be the first transgenic animal crop to be approved. So-callled GMO crops, limited mostly to corn, cotton and soybeans, have become commonplace in the food supply and have had unintended collateral environmental effects, such as killing the Midwestern habitat of Monarch butterflies.

Californians will vote on a ballot measure in November to require labeling of all genetically modified foods.

The genetically modified salmon, into which is inserted a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon and a trait from a fish called ocean pout that keeps the gene in cold weather, grows much faster than wild or farmed salmon. It is produced by a company called AquaBounty. The Food and Drug Administration gave preliminary approval 20 months ago — as it routinely does for all genetically modified foods simply by accepting company testing without independent study — but political opposition has kept it off diners’ tables.

Alaskans opposed the fish fearing human health issues or possible damage to wild fisheries if the salmon escapes.

“We need to look before we leap here, and make that a long hard look,” Murkowski said in a statement. She argued the FDA evaluation of the scientific and biological risks of what she called “Frankenfish” does not include evaluation of “how a worst-case scenario of fish escaping into the ocean ecosystem could adversely impact the seafood industry.”

[WriteWrong]

37. That's what they get for confusing a protest with an action

[proverbialwisdom]

56. 5/23/12 Press Release: American Medical Association Considers GMO Labels

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthinlabelingcoalition.org%2FAMA%2520CONSIDERS%2520LABELS%2520ON%2520GE%2520FOOD.pdf

Contact: Anne Dietrich FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
1100 N. 4th St. Suite 214
Fairfield, Iowa 52556
Tel. [phone]
Email: [e-mail] Website: http://www.truthinlabelingcoalition.org/

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION CONSIDERS LABELS ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD

Fairfield, IA – May 23, 2012—The Indiana State Medical Association and the Illinois State
Medical Society have both introduced resolutions to the American Medical Association
supporting Federal legislation and/or regulations to require labeling of food with genetically
engineered ingredients [1] The Reference Committee for Science and Technology is accepting
comments from AMA membership until June 3 prior to hearing testimony at the House of
Delegate’s annual meeting in Chicago June 17.

Resolution #508 A-11, introduced by the Illinois Delegation, asks that the AMA study
the impact of food containing genetically engineered ingredients and take further action based on
the results of the study. Resolution 509-A-11, introduced by the Indiana Delegation, asks that the
AMA study the impact of mandated labeling of food containing genetically engineered
ingredients and take further action based on the results of the study. Both resolutions were
referred at the 2011 annual meeting to the AMA Council on Science and Public Health, which
released its report last week. [2]

Dr. John Fagan, who plans to testify on behalf of the Indiana State Medical Association,
cautions: “There is a vital need for more emphasis on the role of independent research in
regulatory decision making and public health policy.” A Cornell University Ph.D. who spent
seven years doing research in high-profile laboratories at the National Cancer Institute, Fagan
returned a $614,000 grant to the National Institutes of Health in an ethical stand against genetic
engineering - protesting what he saw as “rampant and unwise genetic tinkering with plants and
animals.”[3]

“There has been global agreement that genetically engineered foods are different than
conventionally bred foods,” states Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist for Consumer Reports,
in a March report submitted to the AMA Council on Science and Public Health. [4] Hansen
testified before the Indiana State Medical Association when the resolution passed the Indiana
House of Delegates in 2011.

Codex Alimentarius, the food safety standards organization of the United Nations
adopted 2011 guidelines recommending all genetically engineered foods to go through a safety
assessment prior to approval. [5] Currently, companies that sell genetically engineered foods in
the U.S. are not required by Food and Drug Administration to conduct thorough health studies
before putting their products on the market.

“Tracking the millions of people with vulnerable immune systems and their reaction to
novel proteins and virus fragments in genetically engineered food is impossible without food
labeling,” warns Dr. Martha Herbert, a pediatric neurologist and past vice-chair of the Council
on Responsible Genetics. [6]

The American Public Health Association, [7] the American Nurses Association, [8] the
Illinois Public Health Association, [9] and the California State Medical Association [10] have
already passed resolutions calling for labeling of genetically engineered food.

1. http://www.ama-assn.org/assets/meeting/2011a/tab-ref-comm-e-addendum.pdf AMA Resolutions #508
(Illinois) & 509 (Indiana)

2. http://www.ama-assn.org/assets/meeting/2012a/a12-csaph-02.pdf AMA House of Delegates A-11 Reference
Committee Report F; June 18 – 23, 2011

3. Seattle Times, Nov.18, 1994; Researcher Gives Back His $614,000 Grant, Quits As `Gene Jockey'
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19941118&slug=1942559

4. Hansen M, “Reasons for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods,” March 19, 2012 At:
http://www.consumersunion.org/pdf/AMA-GE-resolutions-3-19-12.pdf

5. Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plans
(CAC/GL 45, 2003). At: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/standard_list.do?lang=en

6. Kimbrell A. “Your Right to Know: Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in Your Food.” Earth Aware
Editions. 2007: p. 19

7. American Public Health Association Policy Statement Database. “Support of the Labeling of Genetically
Modified Foods.” Available from: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=250

8. House of Delegates Resolution: “Healthy food in health care.” Silver Spring, MD: American Nurses Association.
2008. Available
from:http://www.nursingworld.org/MemberCenterCategories/ANAGovernance/HODArchives/2008HOD/ActionsA
dopted/HealthyFoodinHealthCare.aspx

9. Illinois Public Health Association Resolution No. 3, 2011, Labeling of Foods Containing Genetically Engineered
Ingredients At: http://www.ipha.com/Public/ContentArticle.aspx?type=Policy_Resolution

10. 2002 California Medical Association House of Delegates Resolution HOD 107-02 LABELING OF
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS: RESOLVED: That CMA support accurate labeling requirements for foods,
including genetically modified foods, by appropriate regulatory agencies.

[proverbialwisdom]

58. The cavalry is coming.

This transcends politics.

[proverbialwisdom]

59. "...AMA delegates decided to refer this resolution to a committee that would review recent science."

http://www.rodale.com/ama-conference?page=0,1

AMA conference
Nation's Doctors Want BPA Labeled, and No More Hotdog-Eating Contests

At its annual House of Delegates meeting, the American Medical Association tackled everything from GMOs to airport body scanner safety.

By Emily Main

RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA—As the country's most influential medical society, the American Medical Association (AMA) holds a lot of sway with government officials who decide what is and isn't important when it comes to public health. Last week, the agency concluded its annual House of Delegates meeting, where they themselves decide what health issues need to be addressed.

The 555 members of the AMA's House of Delegates meet every year to vote on policies put forth by doctors and state medical societies covering everything from organizational structure to whether doctors should accept freebies from pharmaceutical companies. Often, agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refer to the AMA's policies when trying to make decisions on laws and regulations.

You may have heard in the news earlier this week that the group voted, by a 2 to 1 ratio, to support the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the controversial health care bill), which requires that all Americans buy health insurance. It got attention for adopting a new policy to encourage advertising agencies to limit the amount of electronic modification done to photographic images of people to make them appear more attractive, saying that the practice promotes unrealistic expectations of body image in teenagers.

The delegates also made a few other standout decisions that didn't get much press coverage:

<...>

Genetically modified food: Prior to the House of Delegates meetings, both the Illinois and Indiana state medical societies proposed resolutions asking the AMA to support labeling requirements for genetically modified (GM) foods. Also known as GMOs, these foods have been known to increase food allergies, and animal studies have shown that they can hamper fertility, lead to accelerated aging, and possibly promote chronic diseases. Unfortunately, these were two resolutions the AMA delegates didn't adopt. But they didn't reject them, either. AMA policy currently opposes the labeling of GM foods, but the delegates decided to refer this resolution to a committee that would review the recent science on GMOs and decide then whether to change their current position.

<...>