Great article. I'm from the Midwest and 50 years ago the farming practises began changing. Spurred on by the Feds to " feed the world " they left out the " by poisoning it " part. I hate to go back there and see the environmental and social destruction. I'm off to the farmer's market and to then to the food co-op. Boycotts may not work but education will. Bon Appetit!

Just what this country needs, another scare rant, on top of all else to worry about. In the first place, that 85% use of GMO products would be with field corn, which is used mainly for livestock feed or export. It is very possible that most of the corn on grocery shelves is not GMO as it would be sweet corn, not field corn.

GMOs are a real scare, one of the first order. The effects of GMOs are unclear. We're guinea pigs. Tests on mice (which are genetically similar to humans) have shown that after a few generations the GMO-fed subjects go sterile. Then we have the obesity epidemic in the US, which started around the early '90s, when GMOs appeared. But the correlation may be coincidental. Fast foods and energy drinks/ pop have gained in usage over the same period, so they might be the culprit.
Either way, America is fat and that's not a good thing.

Big Agra like to say GMOs are 'efficient'. (Real) Research has shown this is propaganda and drivel.

The main purpose of GMOs is covert imperialism. GMOs are spreading around the world at alarming rates. Combined with the 'free market' Globalization laws, which include 'intellectual property' laws that say you have to pay Monsanto if you use GMOs, the GMOs have condensed into a magnificent racket.

In South America, the important Argentinian crop is completely contaminated (which is why you'll see Argentina vote with the US and Canada on GMO issues internationally). There are attempts at penetrating Brazil. India is screwed. Indian farmers are buckling under the extortion scheme and are killing themselves by the hundreds of thousands. Their preferred method of doing it is swallowing the herbicide. The herbicide doubles quite well as a genocide.

I suspect Africa's in the bag, too, or along the way to GMO horror.

Some tasty food for your eugenics conspiracy theories: there exists a type of corn that can sterilize human beings.
This is different from the terminator seeds, which produce plants incapable of reproduction.

The GMO war is one our more important fights, and we're not even aware of it.

There's a good book on GMOs by William Engdahl - "Seeds of Destruction".

Watch this space for Monsanto plants (shills). They have a long history of trying to dilute damaging messaging on public forums, such as this one. Watch what happens. ;-)

I'm not sure what it will take to induce the populace to react to the unhealthy food supply foisted on it and all the numerous destructions of the environment.

"We looked at the enemy, and the enemy was us."

It's pretty darn obvious why agribusiness is fighting this, if the reaction here, if we knew, were the same as it is in Europe, they'd be screwed ...

Of course, the fact that our pols are refusing to require labeling perhaps says a lot more about them than about the big corps, or should i say corpse ....

i wonder what the pols feed their kids? is that why Michele is growing an organic garden? Does she feed her kids GMO crap?

GMO's are, more than anything else, a by-product of big money in farming and big funding in the sciences.

The ruse here is an offshoot of venture capital and has absolutely nothing to do with feeding people or the betterment of humanity.

As one of the founders of NERAGE I traveled all across the country in the 90's disseminating information, doing interviews and debating many of these pro-biotech fraudsters. I can tell you that the single most important thing to all of the scientists involved in this anti-science endeavor is the next grant in the pipeline not the next "discovery."

Get the capitalism out of the equation and like so many other things this wicked endeavor disappears on the wind.

Mansanto helped create agent orange.

Blah, blah, blah. Who doesn’t know this stuff already? Who is left in this country that hasn’t heard all this before? Every time I drive by a conventional grocery store the parking lot is filled with people pushing full grocery carts to their car. NOTHING will change until people vote with their dollars and leave the goop-soup on the shelves! To the mega corporations, money is the bottom line and they will do ANYTHING to make the bucks regardless of who gets hurt in the process. So STOP supporting them!

I no longer try to explain to people why organic is the only way to eat because I'm tired of hearing how much cheaper and easier it is to get conventional food and, oh I love this one, “if it would hurt you, they wouldn’t be allowed to sell it.” That’s my favorite “idiot” response.

You want to get sick, you want your kids to be hyper, sick and dumb – go for it. Better put those few dollars you saved away in the cookie jar cause you’re gonna need em for the doctor bills.

It’s very simple, buy the fruit and veggis that starts with the number “9” on the label instead of the number “4.” I've done my part to educate as many people as I can and I'm tired of adults acting like children and ignoring the facts because they might be a little inconvenienced. I’m also tired of our government (our corporate owned government) enacting laws to deliberately trick and mislead the average citizen/consumer into buying something that is hazardous to their health and I'm tired of the average citizen/consumer going along with it.

But then what do I know?

would it be cheaper to label the non-modifucked food?

Monsanto kills!

Seven Deadly Myths of Industrial Agriculture

The seven deadly myths of industrial agriculture are outlined in a book entitled "Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture," edited by Andrew Kimbrell. The book addresses common myths promulgated by those who are proponents of an industrial agriculture environment. Industrial agriculture involves using tools, machines and other advanced techniques of industry to mass produce food and make farming more scientific and mechanically based.

Myth 1: The Ability to Feed the World

1. The first myth promulgated by proponents of industrial agriculture is that industrial agriculture will enable us to "feed the world." In other words, people will no longer be hungry and that widespread malnutrition can be solved by industrial agriculture. The book points out that the problem of world hunger is not caused by a lack of sufficient food, but rather by isolation from food and poverty. Further, hunger will actually be made worse by industrial agriculture, because the general cost of farming will increase and small independent farmers will no longer be able to produce food for their families and/or communities.

Myth 2: Industrial Food Is Safe, Healthy and Nutritious

2. The second myth is that industrial food is healthy, safe and nutritious. According to the book, the reality of industrial agriculture means contaminated foods and chemicals. The "truth" is that industrial agriculture involves the heavy use of pesticides on fruits and vegetables, as well as the use of growth hormones in milk. This, along with bacteria in the food caused by industrial agriculture, may be responsible for obesity, food-borne sickness, and possibly cancer.

Myth 3: Industrial Food Is Cheaper

3. The third myth is that industrial food is more cost-effective or "cheap." The argument rebuts this myth by saying that, when the true cost, including the health effects, the environmental issues and the social costs is calculated, industrial agriculture is actually extremely expensive.

Myth 4: Industrial Agriculture Is Efficient

4. The fourth myth relates to the efficiency of agriculture. The book attempts to rebut the proposition that industrial agriculture is efficient, pointing out that smaller farms actually produce more output for each unit of space than larger farms, and that larger farms require more mechanical tools and chemicals due to their diversity. These larger farms, the book argues, are thus not sustainable and the use of the chemicals and machines is causing environmental damage.

Myth 5: Industrial Food Offers More Choice

5. The fifth myth is that industrial food offers an increased selection, or more choices. The book suggests that this sense of choice or selection is an illusion, because we are not making informed choices. Food labels hide the problems with foods, we are unaware of how many varieties of food are lost due to industrial agriculture, and all of the food carries with it the same unpleasant additives like pesticides and genetically engineered hormones.

Myth 6: Industrial Agriculture Benefits the Environment

6. The sixth myth deals with the claim that industrial agriculture actually benefits wildlife and the environment as a whole. The book states that, in reality, industrial agriculture is the worst threat to biodiversity in the world, because it destroys wildlife habitats and corrupts water and soil.

Myth 7: Biotechnology Will Solve Any Problems

7. The seventh myth is that the problems associated with industrial agriculture will eventually be solved by new developments in biotechnology. Instead, the book suggests that the opposite is true: These new developments will worsen the problem and give a few select corporations control over the entire world's food supply.

To suggest Biotech is good science is erroneous. It's as sloppy, misguided and dishonest as it gets. It's corporate junk science, pathetic propaganda, research boondoggles, venture capital and vested interests colluding in the most destructive way.

GE fantasy shattered by human genome project

"In everyday language the talk is about a gene for this and a gene for that. We are now finding that that is rarely so. The number of genes that work in that way can almost be counted on your fingers, because we are just not hard-wired in that way."
Craig Venter, Celera Genomics, 12 February 2001

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/GEfantasy.htm

13 February 2001

Although few may have yet noticed, the primitive scientific model on which the foundations of genetic engineering have been constructed was dealt a quiet but earth-shattering blow this week with the formal publication of the base pair sequence of the human genome. That at least must be the ultimate conclusion to be drawn from what has now been revealed (see press reports below).

Although the human genome project is nominally specific to our own genetic code, the "surprising" nature of its results have much broader implications relating to science's understanding of the genome functioning of all species. The project graphically demonstrates that organism biochemistry is driven as much (if not considerably more so) by the multi-dimensional relationships between the thousands of genes involved (which are in turn symbiotically linked to the functioning of the organism as a whole in its environment), as it is by the previously assumed linear influence of individual genes which has largely dominated scientific thinking up until now.

This realisation is one which has been anticipated and highlighted by critics of genetic engineering from the outset, but which (for reasons best known to itself) large portions of the biotechnology community have chosen to ignore. It represents an implicit acknowledgement of why genetic engineering is inherently risk laden, and it is a dramatic illustration of the old common sense adage that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Current methods of modern biotechnology predominately rely on an out-of-date model of the way genes influence biological processes within an organism. Although the model espouses some limited embellishments beyond this, it has been largely a simplistic 'one-for-one' component-based model of biochemical processes.

Even though this model now has no option but to surrender to the concept of the multi-dimensional genome - where relationships rather than components predominate - there is little corrective action that genetic engineers can now take to limit the inherently large risk quotient associated with the use of recombinant DNA that has been exposed by this new understanding. This is simply because almost nothing is currently known about such relationships, despite the fact that they are ultimately responsible for the way in which all proteins in an organism (250,000 in the case of a human) are generated.

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/GEfantasy.htm

The credibility of academia in general, scientists in particular, and indeed, the very role of publicly funded universities in contemporary society is being compromised by the uncritical adoption of industry agendas by academia. Tolerating or indeed contributing to the fevered momentum which is promoting GM crops in the absence of meaningful risk assessment is scientifically unsound. To do so in the face of widespread and growing consumer concern -- that is, by the people who are paying our salaries -- is incomprehensible, arrogant, and reprehensible.

This is not science. This is technology in advance of science, profit-driven applications of commercial technology unfettered by scientific understanding of basic physiology and gene function, and real world implications for society and the environment. This is a solution in search of a problem.

Biotechnology Will Not Feed The World- Quite the Opposite

Before building the case against the range of GMO crops and the processes involved in bringing these crops into existence (the product and the process are intricately linked and this must be understood in full in order to completely assess the subject matter) it is necessary to address and debunk several of the key myths put forward by proponents of Genetically Engineered crops. After that it is done in initial posts I will post extensively on numerous facets of GE foods that show that not only is the promotion of GE foods a fraud of the highest order but it is an extremely dangerous process every step of the way.

A few additional points with the first being the wish that everyone add to the list with stories, articles and any information which you posses that bring to light the various concerns and hazards of GM foods. The next point being that my intent is to only address GM crops/foods. There are many arguments about the processes and products of GMOs that fall into any number of categories ranging from medicine to religion to live bait (not kidding). These are very important discussions but they are not within the scope of what I hope to address here. Lastly I'd like to encourage all of those who are proponents of GE crops/foods to participate most vigorously but do so with factual information and personal analysis. This is understandably a hot topic and I do not ever shy from heated discussions in fact those are often the ones where much is learned. However such immediate labellings that are devoid of any real meaning only betray the weakness of one's position. So please if you are going to simply shout "Luddite!" (which was a social movement when properly understood) understand that that does nothing to further the discussion or strengthen your position.

This is not about progress. You can’t stop progress. No, of course we cannot and why would we want to? Progress implies change for the better. Change for the worse is regression.

Now let us start at the beginning with THE BIG LIE pushed by the Gene Giants and the sundry proponents of genetically engineered foods:

BIOTECHNOLOGY WILL FEED THE WORLD

Even the representatives of biotech companies - such as Steve Smith of Novartis and Paul Rylott of Aventis - have publicly declared that "feeding the world" claims are a myth. Only corporate whores like Jack Gabriels seem still to be spreading this scientifically unjustifiable lie.

"If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world, tell them that it is not. To feed the world takes political and financial will"
Steve Smith, SCIMAC and Novartis (now SYNGENTA), Tittleshall Village Hall public meeting on proposed local GM farm scale trial, 29th March 2000

"GM crops may reduce chemical use and they may increase yields - but GM crops will not feed the world."
Paul Rylott - Aventis - at a public meeting at Low Burnham, Lincs on Wednesday 18th April 2001

Will Biotechnology Feed the World's Poor?

Biotechnology can never be a cure for hunger - Famines are not caused by lack of food but by lack of access to food and alternative sources of income in times of crisis. There are ample reserves of food in the world today yet the numbers of malnourished run into hundreds of millions. Increasing agricultural production (even assuming that this is possible through biotechnology) whilst leaving the structural causes of poverty and hunger unaddressed is a recipe not for feeding the world but for continuing to starve sizable numbers within it.

Biotechnology creates dependency - Biotechnology goes hand in hand with intensive agriculture, with single crops in large fields. The majority of Third World farmers are small-scale, farming a variety of crops. By switching to genetically engineered seeds they have to change their practices and become dependent on the companies which provide the "package" of seeds, herbicides, fertilizers, irrigation systems, etc. In India, farmers using Monsanto's genetically engineered seeds pay an extra $50 - $65 per acre as a 'technical fee' over and above the price of seed. Farmers who do business with Monsanto must sign a contract stating that they will not buy chemicals from any one else.

http://www.pmac.net/campbell.htm

Myth: Genetic engineering is just like conventional breeding

I should, right away, dispel the myth that genetic engineering is just like conventional breeding techniques. It is not. Genetic engineering bypasses conventional breeding by using the artificially constructed vectors to multiply copies of genes, and in many cases, to carry and smuggle genes into cells. Once inside cells, these vectors slot themselves into the host genome. In this way, transgenic organisms are made carrying the desired transgenes. The insertion of foreign genes into the host genome has long been known to have many harmful and fatal effects including cancer; and this is born out by the low success rate of creating desired transgenic organisms. Typically, a large number of eggs or embryos have to be injected or infected with the vector to obtain a few organisms that successfully express the transgene.

The most common vectors used in genetic engineering biotechnology are a chimaeric recombination of natural genetic parasites from different sources, including viruses causing cancers and other diseases in animals and plants, with their pathogenic functions 'crippled', and tagged with one or more antibiotic resistance 'marker' genes, so that cells transformed with the vector can be selected. For example, the vector most widely used in plant genetic engineering is derived from a tumour-inducing plasmid carried by the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens. In animals, vectors are constructed from retroviruses causing cancers and other diseases. A vector currently used in fish has a framework from the Moloney marine leukaemic virus, which causes leukaemia in mice, but can infect all mammalian cells. It has bits from the Rous Sarcoma virus, causing sarcomas in chickens, and from the vesicular stomatitis virus, causing oral lesions in cattle, horses, pigs and humans. Such mosaic vectors are particularly hazardous. Unlike natural parasitic genetic elements which have various degrees of host specificity, vectors used in genetic engineering, partly by design, and partly on account of their mosaic character, have the ability to overcome species barriers, and to infect a wide range of species. Another obstacle to genetic engineering is that all organisms and cells have natural defence mechanisms that enable them to destroy or inactivate foreign genes, and transgene instability is a big problem for the industry. Vectors are now increasingly constructed to overcome those mechanisms that maintain the integrity of species. The result is that the artificially constructed vectors are especially good at carrying out horizontal gene transfer.

Let me summarize why rDNA technology differs radically from conventional breeding techniques.

1. Genetic engineering recombines genetic material in the laboratory between species that do not interbreed in nature.
2. While conventional breeding methods shuffle different forms (alletes) of the same genes, genetic engineering enables completely new (exotic) genes to be introduced with unpredictable effects on the physiology and biochemistry of the resultant transgenic organism.
3. Gene multiplications and a high proportion of gene transfers are mediated by vectors which have the following undesirable characteristics:
a. many are derived from disease-causing viruses, plasmids and mobile genetic elements - parasitic DNA that have the ability to invade cells and insert themselves into the cell's genome causing genetic damages.
b. they are designed to break down species barriers so that they can shuttle genes between a wide range of species. Their wide host range means that they can infect many animals and plants, and in the process pick up genes from viruses of all these species to create new pathogens.
c. they routinely carry genes for antibiotic resistance, which is already a big health problem.
d. they are increasingly constructed to overcome the recipient species' defence mechanisms that break down or inactivate foreign DNA.

http://www.orpheusweb.co.uk/john.rose/ho.html

Myth: Biotechnology Will Reduce The Use of Pesticides

Herbicide tolerant varieties have modestly increased herbicide use

Corn herbicides account for about 40% of the total pounds of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides that are applied annually by U.S. farmers (Table 3.2, Economic Research Service , 1997). Soybean weed management is the second biggest market, accounting for about 68 million pounds applied annually. For this reason, attainment of national pesticide use reduction goals and minimizing environmental damage and public health risks in corn-soybean production areas depends in large measure on innovation in weed management systems in these two major crops. Four years of USDA soybean herbicide use data (1997- 2000) are available and support four conclusions (ERS, 1999; Duffy, 1999; Benbrook, 2001a):

Slightly more pounds of herbicides are applied on the average acre of Roundup-Ready (RR) soybeans compared to the average acre planted to conventional soybean varieties.
Fewer herbicide active ingredients are applied on the average acre of RR soybeans relative to the average conventional acre.

Average per acre pounds of herbicide applied on RR soybeans exceeds by 2- to 10-fold herbicide use on the approximate 30% of soybean acres where farmers depend largely on low-dose imidazolinone and sulfonylurea herbicides.

Herbicide use on RR soybean acres is gradually rising as a result of weed shifts, late-season weed escapes leading to a buildup in weed seedbanks, and the loss of susceptibility to glyphosate in some weed species (Hartzler, 1999; HRAC, 2001).

While RR soybean technology has not reduced herbicide use, it has certainly been a remarkable commercial success. Farmers have embraced the technology because it greatly simplifies soybean weed management and provides additional degrees of freedom in managing weeds (Gianessi and Carpenter, 2000; ERS, 1999).

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/More-GMOs-Less-...

Myth #8 Biotechnology is a more environmentally sound approach to pest management and sustainable agriculture.

* Biotechnology emerges in an area when there is widespread concern about the long-term sustainability of our food production systems. Many scientists raise questions about the growing dependence of farming on non -renewable resources, the depletion of soils through erosion and the heavy reliance on chemicals which are costly but also raise questions about food and environmental quality.
* Agroindustrial's model reliance on monoculture and inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers impacts the environment and society: topsoil has been lost, biodiversity has eroded, and toxics have damaged wildlife, soil and water. As biotechnology requires reliance on monocultures these negative trends will become exacerbated.
* Worldwide, 2.5 million tons of pesticides are applied each year with a purchase price of $20 billion.
* In the US, 500,000 tons of 600 different types of pesticides are used annually at a cost of $4.1 billion.
* The cost to Latin America of chemical pest control is expected to reach US $ 3.97 billion by the year 2000
* An investment of $4 billion dollars in pesticide control saves approximately $16 billions in US crops. But indirect environmental and public health costs of pesticide use (reaching $8 billion each year) need to be balanced against these benefits.
* By weight of active ingredients, herbicides now constitute 85% of all pesticides applied to field crops. Monsanto alone sold $1 billion worth in 1982.
* Biotechnology treats agricultural problems as genetic deficiencies of organisms, and treats nature as a commodity.
* Biotechnology is being used to pursue to patch up problems that have been caused by previous technologies (pest resistance, cost of pesticides, pollution, etc.) which were promoted by the same companies now leading the bio-revolution
* Transgenic crops for pest control follow closely the pesticide paradigm of using a single control mechanism which has proven to fail with insects, pathogens and weeds. As such, they do not fit into the broad ideals of sustainable agriculture.
* The "one gene - one pest" resistance approach is rather easy to be overcome by pests which are continuously adapting to new situations and evolving detoxification mechanisms.
* As with pesticides, biotechnology companies will feel the impact of environmental, farm labor, animal rights and consumers lobbies

http://www.orpheusweb.co.uk/john.rose/biomyth.html

And this?
CLAIM: GE crops do not harm soil ecology

+ BT: Bt toxin from GE plants is very short-lived in soil (Eric Sachs of Monsanto, in response to a question re impacts of Bt corn on soil microbial community, 18 Jun 1999 EPA-USDA Bt corn workshop, as cited by Charles Benbrook)

- Bt toxin stays active in the soil and binds to clays. (See: Tapp, H., Calamai, I., & Stotzky, G. 1994. Soil Biol. Biochem. 26:663-679)

- The bound Bt toxin retains its insecticidal properties. (See: Tapp, H., & Stotzky, G. 1995. Applied and Environ. Microbiology 61:1786-1790)

- By binding to soil particles, the Bt toxin is not degraded by microbial action. (See: Koskella, J. & Stotzky, G. Sep 1997. Microbial Utilization of Free and Clay-Bound Insecticidal Activity after Incubation with Microbes. Applied and Environ. Microbiology 63:3561-3568)

- The Bt toxin also binds to humic acids. "Bound humic acid-toxin complexes were toxic to larvae of the tobacco hornwork (Manduca sexta). The lethal concentration necessary to kill 50% of the larvae (LC50) of the bound toxin was comparable with that of the free toxin, indicating that the binding of the toxin to humic acids did not affect insecticidal activity... The result of these studies indicate that the toxins from B. thuringiensis introduced in transgenic plants and microbes could persist, accumulate, and remain insecticidal in soil as a result of binding to humic acids, as well as on clays, as previously described. This persistence could pose a hazard to non-target organisms and enhance the selection of toxin-resistant target species." (See: Crecchio, C. & Stotzky, G. 1998. Insecticidal activity and biodegradation of the toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki bound to humic acids from soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30:463-470.)

- The bound Bt toxin persists in various soils for at least 234 days (termination of experiment). (See: Tapp, H. & Stotzky, G. 1998. Persistence of the Insecticidal Toxin from Bt subsp. Kurstaki in Soil, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, Vol 30 No 4:471-476.)

- The Bt corn plant exudes Bt toxin from its roots, the insecticidal properties intact, into the soil. Larvae placed on medium containing exudates from Bt corn stopped feeding and began to die after 2 to 3 days and had a mortality of 90 to 95% after 5 days (dose lethal to 50% of larvae, LC50, was 5.2 mu.g protein). There was no immunological reaction or larval mortality obtained with the exudates from non-Bt corn. We have no indication of how soil communities might be affected by Bt toxin in root exudates in the field. Bt toxin in the rhizosphere might improve the control of insect pests, or it might promote the selection of toxin-resistant target insects. Receptors for the toxin are present in non-target as well as target insects, so there may be a risk that non-target insects and organisms in higher trophic levels could be affected by the toxin. Further investigations will be necessary to shed light on what might happen underground. (See: Saxena D., Flores, S. & Stotzky, G. Dec 1999. Transgenic Plants: Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn. Nature 402:480)

- ``We were surprised,'' Dr. Stotzky said. ``I'm sure it hangs around longer. We just terminated the experiment after eight months.'' (See: NYTimes, pg. 1, 3 Nov 1999, "Reassessing Ecological Risks of Genetically Altered Plants" by CAROL KAESUK YOON)

- ``There is a potential hazard that it (the toxin) builds up and could enhance the selection of resistant target organisms and could possibly effect non-target organisms,'' Stotzky said in an interview. ``Theoretically it could affect any organism that is susceptible to the toxin.'' Stotzky called for more studies to determine the impact of the toxin's build-up in the soil on insects and other organisms. ``Those studies need to be done. They should have been done a long time ago before the regulatory agencies allowed the release of these plants,'' he added. (See: Reuters, 1 Dec 1999, "Gene-Modified Corn Insecticide in Soil - Study" by Patricia Reaney)

- Dr. Stotzky and his colleagues found that the poison binds to clay particles and humic acids found naturally in most soils. Instead of disappearing in about 25 days, it is active for at least 234 days. The scientists note that pollen falling on the ground and corn stocks plowed back into the soil add to the toxin that roots exude. They don't know if build-up would continue or level off. Bt corn toxin is different from Bt sprays widely used as an alternative to chemical insecticides, Stotzky explains. The latter are crystals that only become active in the target insects' digestive systems. That's why they don't harm other creatures. The corn carries a gene that produces the active form of the poison, which puts pressure on soil organisms. No one knows the consequences, Stotzky says, but ``we should stop at this point and consider these things.'' (See: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR - USA, 2 DEC 1999, "New findings say genetically altered corn can poison the soil" by Robert C. Cowen)

I highly recommend you look into all of this and I want to stress this point:
The Bt corn plant exudes Bt toxin from its roots, the insecticidal properties intact, into the soil.

You may wish to investigate the tests done in Corvallis, Oregon St. that proved conclusively that GM crops damaged root systems and also spread within the soil like wildfire. They shut that experiment down post haste.

Essential report:

Genetically engineered (GE) crops present different risks than other agricultural technologies, such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers, in part because genes can be perpetuated indefinitely by the reproduction of the plant. One way the persistence of engineered genes, or “transgenes,” can occur is by spreading into sexually compatible wild relatives of crops. This process, known as “gene flow,” can perpetuate whatever harm may be caused by transgenes, because once they escape into wild relatives, some will become a permanent part of the environment. This is because wild relatives, unlike most of their related crops, can survive in the environment without human intervention. For this reason, transgenes in wild relatives may harm parts of the environment, such as natural areas, that would not be directly harmed if the same genes were restricted to crop plants. Transgenes could harm the environment by increasing the weediness of wild relatives; or by harming plants, animals, or environmental processes. Many wild relatives are also serious crop weeds, and therefore gene flow may also harm agriculture. The possibility of irrevocable impact on the environment should serve as a warning to prevent gene flow, or to ensure that harm will be minimal if gene flow occurs. To better understand the risks from gene flow to wild relatives, this report evaluates the regulation in the U.S. of GE field trials, which are outdoor plantings of experimental GE crops. All genetically engineered plants must acquire USDA approval to be grown outdoors in field trials. This report evaluates whether current USDA regulation is adequate to prevent gene flow from field trials, or environmental harm if gene flow occurs. Gene flow from GE field trials is of particular concern because these trials contain experimental genes that have undergone little or no risk assessment by USDA or other regulatory agencies. In most cases, GE crops grown in field trials are not formally assessed for safety by USDA until the crop is slated for commercialization, which usually occurs after many field trials have already been completed. The types of experimental genes tested in field trials far G outnumber the few types of transgenes found so far in commercialized GE crops, so these genes present risks that have not been carefully evaluated. And because most transgenic crops are never commercialized, many genes in field trials never undergo more than a cursory safety assessment. Concern about gene flow from GE field trials to wild plants recently acquired new urgency with the discovery that an herbicide resistance gene had spread via pollination into wild creeping bentgrass plants in Oregon. Transgenic seed was found on creeping bentgrass plants and another related species up to 13 miles beyond field trial boundaries—far beyond the 900 foot isolation distance accepted by USDA. 1 This breach of confinement is not unique; another occurred during a previous creeping bentgrass trial. As these data indicate, USDA’s existing standards for transgene confinement, which typically have been based on the less-critical needs of conventional plant breeding, are unlikely to prevent gene flow. The likelihood of gene flow is further magnified by the large number of field trials for crops with wild relatives. For example, in addition to the aforementioned trials, 168 other bentgrass field trials have been approved, often for genes that may spread more easily in the wild than herbicide resistance. Whether pollination or gene flow from other trials has already occurred is unknown, because tests to detect gene flow to wild relatives are rarely conducted. Since 1987, when USDA began regulating GE crop field trials, over 2694 trials for crops with wild relatives have been approved for the 20 crops examined in this report. This is about a quarter of all approved field trials. There were 294 such field trials approved in 2004 alone. 1710 GE field trials—16% of the total of all field trials—have been approved for states where wild relatives are reported to grow, increasing the likelihood of close proximity that facilitates gene flow. Furthermore, wild relatives are often common weeds of crops, and therefore are even more likely to be found close to GE field trials. 2) Some field trials are large, covering hundreds or thousands of acres, substantially increasing the likelihood of gene flow. Although it may be assumed that field trials are very small because they are often used for research, many are quite large. Large field trials produce more pollen, increasing the probability of more gene flow over greater distances. At least 290 trials of 50 or more acres have been approved, including the recent creeping bentgrass trial in Oregon, which was granted for 600 acres. There have been 17 large trials of creeping bentgrass, with an average size of 214 acres, and 32 large field trials of canola with an average size of 563 acres. The largest field trial, for cotton, was 34,350 acres.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:fO-2h2Un0gUJ:...

I have only a few close friends still living, and of those, three have grandchildren or greatgrandchildren under the age of five years born with serious heart problems and/or serious physical deformaties.

Except for the Thalidamide(sp?) disaster the year my son was born - in 1960 - which caused babies to be born minus limbs, and the son of a friend's neighbors being born with a hole in his heart, I've seen only happy, healthy babies born to myself, my friends, co-workers, and everyone in my sphere of awareness. So hearing from my friends, one after the other, what shape their newest grandchild, or first greatgrandchild was in at birth was a terrible shock.

If interested please see; Organic consumers association action alerts organic consumers association.org
There are a lot of good resources at the site,including the labeling action of 6/17.
peace

Secret Monsanto Genetically Engineered Potato Study Suppressed for 8 Years
Press Release
GM Potatoes are "unfit for human consumption"
GM Free Cymru, Feb 16, 2007
Straight to the Source

A secret feeding study of Monsanto GM potatoes, conducted in 1998 by the Institute of Nutrition of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and suppressed for 8 years, showed that the potatoes did considerable damage to the organs of the rats in the study (1) (2). In comparison the rats in the "control groups" which were fed on normal potatoes or on a non-potato diet were healthier, and had much less organ and tissue damage. This research, fully supported by Monsanto through the provision of the GM potatoes, was conducted at approximately the same time as Arpad Pusztai's research in the Rowett Institute.

The potatoes used in the study were Monsanto GM NewLeaf potatoes bred in 1995 from the Russet Burbank variety to be resistant to the Colorado Beetle. The GM event was registered as 082, and the potatoes are included in the Bt group of GM crops. They also contain an antibiotic resistance marker gene (3). The potatoes were deregulated in the USA in 1998, without any feeding studies being required. Another line was deregulated in 1999. Even earlier, in 1996, Monsanto started to introduce the potatoes into Russia and Georgia, and probably into many other countries with lax approval regimes as well (4). For some reason (probably to assist in the consent process) Monsanto co-operated in some feeding studies involving rats from the Institute of Nutrition of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. Something "inconvenient" showed up in these feeding studies, but the Institute refused to release all the information into the public domain and in 1999 the researchers presented a "doctored" version of their Report in support of Monsanto's application for Russian commercialization. The consent was duly given in 2000 by the Russian regulators on the basis of this corrupt piece of science.

However, Greenpeace and other consumer groups mounted a protracted and immensely frustrating campaign to obtain a sight of the feeding study Report. In May 2004 the Nikulinski District Court in Russia ruled that information relating to the safety of GM food should be open to the public. On the basis of this ruling Greenpeace tried to obtain the GM potato report; but the Institute and Monsanto refused to release it. So Greenpeace and local activist groups again took the Institute to court, and in October 2005 won a ruling that the Report must be released. At last it was handed over, and examined by Dr Irina Ermakova at the request of Greenpeace. She produced a brief Russian paper on her findings, and we have now produced an English- language version with the kind agreement of Greenpeace (5).

Ironically, the NewLeaf GM potato was a failure, and it proved to give poor yields and to be susceptible to disease in European environments. While Monsanto was enthusiastically promoting its GM potatoes in Eastern Europe, it was having second thoughts in the United States and Western Europe, and pulled out of GM potato development in 2002 (6). The results of the 1998 GM potato rat feeding study may well have had a bearing on that decision.

Dr Irina Ermakova, the Greenpeace consultant, has herself conducted animal feeding experiments with GM materials. In her very restrained commentary on the Russian study (1) she criticized the small scale of the experiment and its design, and was especially critical of the complacent conclusions drawn by the authors from evidence which was actually profoundly worrying. The GM potato was nutritionally inferior to its conventional counterpart and to other Russian potato varieties. The research results showed that both "normal" Russet Burbank potatoes and the GM variety caused "serious morphological changes in the internal organs" of the animals in the trials. They also showed that the group of animals fed on the GM potatoes suffered greater weight loss than the other animals, and statistically significantly greater damage to kidneys, liver and large gut. There was also greater damage to blood serum, testes and prostate. Dr Ermakova concluded: "The GM potatoes were the most dangerous of the feeds used in the trials........ and on the basis of this evidence they CANNOT be used in the nourishment of people."

Given the small scale of the feeding trials (only ten animals in each feeding group) and doubts about the statistical significance of some of the Report's findings, Dr Ermakova stressed the importance of follow-up studies on a larger scale and with more careful experimental design. But no matter what the shortcomings of the work may be, the Institute of Nutrition research did nothing to show that the Monsanto GM potatoes are safe. That should not be a surprise to anybody, since Bt potatoes are classified as pesticides in the US and have never been tested for toxicity or allergenicity (7).

According to Dr Brian John of GM Free Cymru, it is incredible that Monsanto and the Institute of Nutrition have kept the research secret until now. "That obsessive secrecy has clearly been against the public interest," he says, "and it tells us a great deal about Monsanto's priorities. If the company had any regard at all for the health of consumers, it would have published these results world-wide in 1999, and at the very least it would have commissioned follow-up research which might have confirmed or discredited the study's findings. Instead of that, it connived with the Russian researchers to keep the information away from public scrutiny, just as it did with the feeding study results for MON863 maize in 2005. On that occasion too, it took a court case and massive media coverage to obtain sight of the research team's raw data and to reveal evidence of damage to health." (8)

...

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4167.cfm

Biotech GM seeds buccaneers destroy India's Rice Economy

by Arun Shrivastava

Global Research, December 21, 2006

The India Government is firmly under control of buccaneers of bio-technology and spurious Life Sciences multinational corporations. Despite rules to the contrary, GM experiments have been going on across India with the complicity of the Indian Government. Most importantly, the attack is now on rice.

India is a centre of origin for rice and the centre for diversity for rice genes, in the same way as Mexico is for corn. It is therefore much more than just a rice country. This makes the Government’s cavalier attitude to India’s Non-GM status for rice, one of irresponsible criminal negligence. In embarking on high-risk field trials of GM-rice, it exposes our rice farmers to contamination by GM including transgenic contamination of wild species and the rice seed stock. If we Indians lose control over local rice seeds we lose our right to food and nutrition. We lose our sovereignty.

Has the Government exercised due diligence?

In granting permission for field trials, the Government of India has failed to protect the people’s interest and health. The Supreme Court of India in its interim order in matter of a Public Interest Litigation number 260 of 2006 <1st May 2006> had directed that an inter-ministerial "Genetic Engineering Approvals Committee" be formed and all applications for field trails be routed via GEAC. This does not imply that the SC had given a carte blanche to GEAC to approve field trials; rather, the directive was to prevent one department from taking unilateral decisions and bring in some discipline.

However, in the ‘67th Meeting of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee’ held on 22.05.2006, the GEAC brushed aside all such concerns and in utter defiance of the spirit of the Order it has rubberstamped an astonishing 91 GM products for multi-location trials

91 approvals in one meeting.

Which forced the Supreme Court to pass another order on 20th September, 2006:

not inclined to direct stoppage of field trials. At the same time, deem it appropriate to direct the GEAC to withhold the approvals till further directions are issued by this Court on hearing all concerned.

Not only that approvals have been rushed through in anticipation of a possible full spectrum ban on field trial in India, activists have been stone walled from obtaining information on locations and type of seeds being tested. It is only after petition under Right to Information were filed that some information has been revealed by the Department of Biotechnology.

Thus, the big seed companies have committed crimes against humanity with full connivance of officials of the Department of Biotechnology and members of GEAC .

This is a crime against the people of India and against India’s farmers because these approvals have been given knowing the fact that in the last two years, 70% of the farmer suicides in the Maharashtra belt are Bt cotton farmers suicides.

"During the latter part of April, the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) uncovered deadly toxic reaction in sheep and goats in Warangal in AP from grazing in Bt cotton fields in Feb/March, post the last cotton harvest of 2005-2006. Local shepherds estimate the total mortality for the area to be around 10,000 dead sheep and goats."

We do not care how many acres have been planted. We do know that six varieties of Bt rice are under open field trials. These are: MRP 5305 Bt., MRP5319Bt., MRP 5401 Bt., MRP5445Bt., MRP 5629 Bt., and MRP5631 Bt.

Whilst Bt rice trials have been approved in 10 out of India’s 25 states, we suspect that the total area where GE field trails have been slipped in, without knowledge of the poor farmers who rented their lands, could be significant.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SHR20061221&articleId=4230

Pollinate me. I'm glad I'm not a bee.

shadre's comments about grandchildren and great-grandchildren being born deformed are frightening and ring true for me. I'm pretty sure my very young grandson is damaged, but my daughter doesn't want to admit it.

I also suspect that neurological abnormalities will start showing up before obvious physical deformities.

The issue of "gene flow" from open-field GM tests should be considered at the criminal level. It is roughly equivalent to an AIDS-infected man raping women in broad daylight and laughing about it over drinks at the local pub.

American agriculture---the entire "food production" process from what used to be "soil" to the checkout counter---has become pathological hubris.

-30-

Good job, mcoyote .

Disguised As Philanthropy- Gene Dumping In Mexico

GENE DUMPING IN MEXICO

A number of the biotech giants have been involved in initiatives that bring transgenic crops to small-scale farmers in the South. The motivation for doing so is presented as philanthropy. But a closer look uncovers a hidden agenda.

Monsanto, for example, donated genes for Potato Viruses X and Y (PVX and PVY) to Mexican researchers for introduction into varieties grown for local consumption. This is an example of effective market segmentation. The company had nothing to lose because its own interests are in the commercial market (particularly the export market), and because of the difficulty of transferring the genes into other varieties. Monsanto provided the genes and training for Mexican researchers, one of whom studied field trial protocols and regulatory issues in the US. Here was the big gain for Monsanto. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications, which brokered the deal, it "helped Mexico establish regulatory procedures and a biosafety review system ... The US companies were able to supply Mexican authorities with information on field problems, on potential risks that field testing might pose, and on how to deal with them."

In this way, Monsanto gained not only from getting farmers used to the idea of transgenic crops, but also in managing to export the US' industry-friendly regulatory procedures to Mexico. In doing so, Monsanto managed to ease the entry of its commercial varieties into the country. Small-scale farmers, meanwhile, are being drawn onto the technology treadmill and down the diversity drain, albeit in a more subtle fashion than sometimes (ie by impregnating their own favourite varieties rather than introducing new ones). Rosita, one of the Mexican varieties transformed using Monsanto's genes, and some virus-resistance genes for sweet potatoes, have now been dumped on Kenyan farmers, along with the same biosafety regulations.

Other examples of gene dumping by corporations include Asgrow's donation of cucumber mosaic virus resistance genes for melons in Costa Rica and Mexico; and Novartis' contribution of sweet potato weevil resistance genes to Vietnamese researchers.

Source: “The ISAAA Biotechnology Fellowship Program,” ISAAA, Ithaca, New York.

GM Food & Feed Not Fit for "Man or Beast"

Mae-Wan Ho and Joe Cummins

Bt toxins known to be harmful

The Cry proteins, dozens of them, are also called Bt toxins because they are produced by different strains of the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis <5, 6>. Reports in the scientific literature have documented that bacterial spores of B. thuringiensis, containing a mixture of different toxins, can cause allergic reactions in farm workers; that some toxins are immunogenic in animals, Cry1Ac in particular, has been identified as a potent immunogen, as potent as cholera toxin; that cells in the lining of the small intestine in rats have proteins that bind to the toxins <7>, and further, Cry1Ab protein is 92% indigestible in pigs <8>.

Regulatory sham over Bt crops

The findings on Bt toxins have been completely ignored in a regulatory process that can only be described as a sham.

Worse still, Bt genes in crops are synthetic or hybrid constructions, with important changes from the naturally occurring bacterial genes. Yet, toxicity tests are routinely done using the natural toxins, and not the toxin produced in the GM crop plants, with the result that the Bt toxins in GM crops are almost completely unknown and untested for toxicity.

There’s evidence that the natural toxin is not the same as, or “substantially equivalent” to, the GM toxin. Green lacewings suffer significantly reduced survival and delayed development when fed an insect pest (lepidopteran) that has eaten GM maize containing the Bt toxin Cry1Ab, but not when fed the same pest treated with much higher levels of the natural toxin <9, 10>. This is an extremely important effect passed on through the food chain; and has been documented in several laboratories. Unfortunately, the researchers misrepresented the results to mean that Cry1Ab does not harm beneficial insect predators <11>.

All GM genes differ from natural genes

All foreign genes inserted into GM organisms are different from their natural counterparts. The minimum construct consists of a promoter, a gene-switch that says to the cell, "copy the following message (the gene or coding sequence) for making a protein", and another signal, the terminator, to say, "stop here, end of message". All three parts are often from different sources. The gene itself could also be a composite of different DNA, often made artificially in the laboratory <12>.

It is generally not easy to get the foreign gene to work, so a very aggressive promoter is needed, literally to force the cell to make the protein. The cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter is the most popular one used, and is often accompanied by other 'boosters' from a variety of sources.

For example, Mon 863 maize is described on the AGBIOS Database as follows:

"The introduced DNA contained the modified cry3Bb1 gene from B. thuringiensis subsp. kumamotoensis under the control of the 4-AS1 promoter (CaMV 35S promoter with 4 repeats of an activating sequence), plus the 5' untranslated leader sequence of the wheat chlorophyll a/b binding protein (wt CAB leader) and the rice actin intron. The transcription termination sequence was provided from the 3' untranslated region of the wheat 17.3 kD heat shock protein (tahsp17). The modified cry3Bb1 gene encodes a protein of 653 amino acids whose amino acid sequence differs from that of the wild-type protein by the addition of an alanine residue at position 2 and by seven amino acid changes."

There are thus 9 bits of DNA from different sources including the coding sequence, which has been quite substantially altered from the natural gene.

The GM process is unreliable and uncontrollable

That's not all. The artificial constructs are further spliced into gene carriers or vectors, and introduced into cells by invasive methods that result in random integration into the genome, giving rise to unpredictable, random effects, including gross abnormalities in animals and further unexpected toxins and allergens in food crops.

A transgenic line is essentially regenerated from a single cell in which specific GM DNA integration occurred. Each event will give rise to a different line. In other words, there is no possibility for quality control. This problem is compounded by the overwhelming instability of transgenic lines, because the artificial constructs cobbled together from DNA of different sources tend to have weak joints, especially if they include elements like the CaMV 35S promoter, which is known to have a fragmentation or recombination hotspot (see later).

Transgenic lines are overwhelmingly unstable

We have referred to the instability of transgenic lines as the "best kept open secret", because everybody has known about it for years, but agree to say nothing, while regulators turned a blind eye.

(Claims of genetic stability based on the failure to depart from Mendelian ratios have been widely accepted as evidence of Mendelian inheritance, i.e., a sign of genetic stability. But such claims are bogus for a number of reasons. First, a 'Mendelian ratio' refers to the proportion of different classes of offspring predicted from a cross involving different lines. It depends on assuming that Mendelian inheritance is true; so in order to depart from a particular ratio, a sufficiently large number of offspring are needed to obtain the required level of significance (at 5%). Consequently, a failure to depart from the predicted Mendelian ratio does not prove Mendelian inheritance. On the contrary, the real inheritance may be non-Mendelian (a sign of genetic instability), but an insufficient number of offspring has been produced for the statistical test to reach the required level of significance.

The results revealed that,
• All GM inserts had rearranged from the structure provided by the company
• Many of the breakpoints for rearrangement involve the CaMV 35S promoter, as can be predicted from its known recombination hotspot
• Scrambling of the genome occurred at the site of insertion
• GM inserts appear to show a preference for mobile genetic elements

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

The Supreme court has just lifted a lower courts ban on Roundup ready Alfalfa today.This is less of a threat in my opinion of contaminating other crops because farmers usually mow before flowering ,but none the less pollen and plants could and will escape to cross with non GMO Alfalfa or related legumes. Legumes like Black Medic,and other Alfalfa like plants have extremely deep root systems and produce thousands of seeds.
Could these be the next families of "super weeds'?
peace