The safety of GMOs revisited

The Institute for Responsible Technology has recently issued a report called ''State-of-the-Science on the Health Risks of GM Foods''. According to the Organic Consumers' Association:

the 28-page study describes the conflict of interest among regulators that allowed GMO foods on the market; the wide range of adverse findings from animal feeding studies [...]; reports by farmers of thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock; toxic and allergic properties of GM foods; numerous scientific assumptions used as the basis for safety claims that have since proven false; inadequate regulatory oversight; biased industry safety studies; manipulation of public opinion; and the mistreatment of scientists critical of the technology.

The report is available for free download here.

Canada's Bill C-517 killed, Canadians denied mandatory labelling of GM foods

Well, after receiving no attention whatsoever in the mainstream media, it looks as if the private member's bill, Bill C-517, An Act to Amend the Food and Drugs Act (mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods) was kicked to the curb before even getting to the second reading stage to determine whether it should be passed on to a committee. Those who voted it down include Convervative MPs Preston Manning and Peter MacKay, as well as Liberal MPs Michael Ignatieff and Paul Zed (from Saint John, NB) and if you click on the link above, you'll get a complete list of which MP thinks you shouldn't have a right to know what goes into your food. There were 101 ''yays'', 156 ''nays'' and 18 paired votes. That's close enough that all it would have taken was a bit of reporting on this to get people's attention so that they'd pressure their MPs to vote to push it forward. Greenpeace Canada has more about it here.

Amy Goodman and Vanity Fair's James Steel on Democracy Now!

A month ago, I'd written about Vanity Fair's recent weighty exposé on the monstrously huge biotech bully Monsanto. Tuesday's episode of Democracy Now! featured Amy Goodman's interview with James Steele, the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist who co-authored the Vanity Fair piece. You can listen to (or watch) the interview here, or read the transcript here.

Democracy Now! also provides a link to the five page letter written by a Monsanto PR rep to Steele in response to his original article. In the letter, Monsanto attempts to disassociate itself from its previous incarnations, referring to the companies it was as if it's completely unrelated to them, instead of having evolved from them. The rep absolves the ''new'' Monsanto of any sort of ethical accountability and beats it all down to so much legal mumbo-jumbo, as if changing a company's name cleans the slate.

The rep refuses to discuss anything having to do with their bullying and harassment of farmers in what the rep refers to as ''patent infringement cases'', except to describe the manner they go about investigating claims as this almost genteel process. Then, as if to make the whole thing smell even more benevolent, he adds that funds gained by blackmailing and intimidating farmers go towards agricultural education and scholarships. Nice.

The letter response is well worth reading, just to get a sense of the time and energy that this company puts into manipulating its image. And the interview is a must-see.

Ug99 and your loaf of bread

As wheat prices soar, another danger is lurking just around the corner (or across the ocean, to be more precise) -- actual wheat shortages. A fungus called Ug99 has wiped out 70% of Africa's wheat crops, and it's expected that in some areas there, crops will be a total loss. First discovered in 1999 in Uganda, the fungus has already spread to Asia thanks to its wind-borne spores. Scientists are concerned that it will inevitably make its way to Europe and North America.

In a New York Times piece from this past Saturday, Norman E. Borlaug, the Nobel Prize winning and biotech / genetic engineering promoting ''Father of the Green Revolution'', calls for the development of a stem-rust-resistant (no doubt genetically modified) form of wheat and for it to be used to replace ''almost all of the commercial wheat grown in the world today'', for the sake and safety of the global wheat supply.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently handed Cornell University a $26.8 million dollar grant to initiate a three year study to develop (primarily and mostly through genetic modification), a stem-rust-resistant variety. Details of the project are available here in its executive summary.

I'm wondering what all of this will mean for organic wheat farmers.

Canada's Bill C-517 to mandate labeling of genetically engineered foods

Earlier this afternoon, I first heard of Bloc Québecois MP Gilles A. Perron's recently introduced private member's bill (Bill C-517) to mandate the labeling of genetically engineered foods (aka genetically modified foods or foods containing GMOs). I heard about it listening to Kootenay Co-op Radio's April 10, 2008 "Deconstructing Dinner" podcast on the recent House of Commons debate over Bill C-517. Click here to read a full transcript of this debate. This bill was first debated on April 3 -- over a week ago. I'd like to think that I keep my ear to the ground. I try to stay up to date on news pertaining to goings on in the land of biotech agriculture. Wondering how I missed this altogether, I did a Google News search for C-517 and found one single news article mentioning it, and guess what? It wasn't in mainstream news, even though it's quite probably one of the most important bills to come up for debate in years that would directly impact consumer freedom for Canadians.

Today, 40 countries around the world including China, Russia and those in the EU have mandatory labeling of GMOs in food. Why doesn't Canada? According to the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), 10 years of polling have shown that over 80% of Canadians want their food to be labeled as such if it contains GMOs, yet the only thing that exists now in Canada is voluntary labeling. Companies are free to list ingredients or foods as not containing genetically engineered non-GMO (or non genetically engineered), but I've yet to see a company come forward to assert that its product actually does contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Green Peace Canada has information and recommendations on how you can easily let your MP know today that you want her (or him) to vote in favour of mandatory labeling -- to give you the consumer the right to choose whether or not genetically engineered foods end up on your dinner plate. Or on your children's dinner plates. All it takes is a quick phone call or email to your MP. This bill will be getting a second reading before the end of the month and then a vote will be taken in the House of Commons. Consumers need to take action now, before it's too late to be heard!

Vanity Fair's Monsanto article

Smack dab on the heels of the DVD release of award-winning French journalist and documentary filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin's Le Monde selon Monsanto (aka The World According to Monsanto), first aired on the French-German TV network ARTE, Vanity Fair's May issue features a scathing and comprehensive article exposing agribusiness bully Monsanto. It contains everything from personal accounts of their harrassment of farmers to story after story of Monsanto's lengthy history of hiding facts from the public about the toxicity of its products. It needs to be read by anybody not actively avoiding and condemning their products. Now the world's largest seed producer, Monsanto is sytematically snapping up the rest of the competition, company by company.

(The Robin documentary is a must-see, by the way. It's widely available across the internet (e.g. Google video, on different environmental/organic websites, et al.), either in streaming format or for download. It's also available for sale on ARTE's website.)

GMOs in EU Revisited

I wrote about France's recent banning of Monsanto's genetically modified corn (MON810) last Monday. European farm ministers met today to discuss whether to allow it, three other types of maize and a type of genetically modified potato to be grown in Europe. The farm ministers couldn't reach an agreement, one way or another, which is tantamount to waving it through. According to Reuters:

EU law provides for rubberstamp GMO authorizations when ministers are unable to agree after a certain time. Since 2004, the Commission has authorized a string of GMOs -- nearly all maize types -- in this way, outraging green groups.

In the news, as well, concerning GMOs and the EU: Europe is purportedly facing a ''crisis'' in its meat supply because of political resistance concerning the use of genetically modified protein in animal feed. Without being able to either grow or import the feed, it seems livestock totals will have to be cut back and that the price of meat could increase drastically, and that the recourse would be to import meat from outside of the EU -- ironically enough, from animals raised on genetically modified feed. It's funny how the idea of just encouraging consumers to lessen their consumption of animal products couldn't be factored in somehow. I mean, is it really so unthinkable? Did I miss the part about the sky falling?

France bans its only homegrown GM crop

I read an article today that made me feel hopeful. It's the old drop in the bucket, I know, but it's still good to see someone standing up to international agri-bullies. France has decided to ban its only genetically modified crop, the MON810 strain of corn introduced to them by the friendly folks at Monsanto. The corn is used for animal feed. A few weeks ago, when France first expressed its intentions to impose a ban, the US-based Biotechnology Industries Organisation (BIO) released a statement calling on the US government and European Union to jump into the fray to intervene. According to BIO:

"This continued moratorium will negatively impact French farmers, consumers, and the environment. Biotech crops have tremendous potential to reduce the environmental impact of farming. By growing biotech crops, farmers reduce pesticide applications and the consumption of fuel and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as reduce the need for plowing to control weeds, which leads to better conservation of soil and water, and a decrease in soil erosion and compaction."

Ah... sure. However, according to Greenpeace, all is not cut and dried concerning MON810's effectiveness, or its possible impact on the insects and organisms (either beneficial or harmful) that are exposed to it. Sale of the seed was banned in Germany earlier last year and this ban has since been lifted, albeit with regulations imposed to purportedly curtail the possibility of cross-contamination of GM crops with conventional crops. Since France took its stance on MON810, over 300 scientists and environmental groups in Spain (Europe's largest grower of GMOs) have come forward with a petition calling for a ban on the cultivation of all GMOs in Spain. The United States' government will likely attempt to retaliate against France with trade sanctions at the WTO level, which it did a few years back in response to Austria's ban on the cultivation and use of MON810. Austria still refuses to lift its ban.

The Organic Consumers Association has a ton of information on GMOs in general, and on Monsanto, more specifically -- its products, its politics and its history. The one thing that is clear in all of this is that agribusiness has become less about consumerism and more about politics, where international trade regulations are now taking away the rights of elected governments to respond to the needs and concerns of their own people. What better way to circumvent consumers' rights to control what they eat than to force it into their stores and sneak it into their products?

As agribusiness continues to fight against the labelling of GMO products, this leaves consumers with the task of struggling to educate themselves about where their food comes from, and whether the manufacturers producing it are using genetically modified ingredients. When it comes to choices, it seems that the only uncomplicated option now left to consumers that doesn't involve doing your homework first is to choose to purchase organic products.

Would you like some Roundup to round off your meal?

So I've been reading about changes coming up in the world of sweets next year. It seems that some major sugar producers in the US have announced that they're going to be switching to genetically modified sugar beets to produce their sugar. The sugar beets in question will be genetically engineered to withstand heavy doses of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide (these crops or then referred to as "Roundup Ready", which means that farmers get to use oodles more herbicide to get from point A to point B -- from their chemical-saturated fields to your sweet tooth. This sugar will make its way into most non-organic processed foods and won't be labeled any differently than the sugar that's being used now. Whatever happens to the US food supply will follow suit in the Canadian food suppy. In fact, here's Health Canada's official response to the whole matter.

The Organic Consumers Association in the US has a letter writing campaign on the go right now to try to convince American Crystal, one of the larger producers involved, to reconsider its decision. Call me cynical, but I honestly don't see it amounting to much, especially considering that this story seems to be staying completely out of the mainsteam media.

Thanks to The Ethicurean for spreading the word about this.