posted on May 25, 2003 10:22:57 AM newThe burden of proof should be on the producers of GM foods. Before a drug can be approved for use in medicine, it usually has to pass rigorous animal studies, followed by three phases of clinical trials. It is a double standard for a government to require such extensive (and very expensive) safety and efficacy data to protect a group of sick people, without requiring similar scientifically-sound safety data to protect masses of healthy consumers of foreign proteins in GM foods. If government regulators ever remove this double standard, the GE debate will be over; GM foods will be too expensive.
aposter:
EXCELLENT!
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
posted on May 25, 2003 12:06:23 PM newReamond: "aposter - You make up pretty good stories. I think you have one lie after another about your "experience" calling everybody but god about GM foods. All the info is out there, go find it yourself. I know for a fact that the patented genetics are open to the public, as well as the safety testing."
No Reamond. I am allergic to quite a few foods, two medicines and a couple chemicals.
Some of the foods have been extremely altered transgenically. I was tested before I knew they were and reacted to most before
these were on the market.
There is no reason for me to lie and take time to do so.
What is your reasoning for not showing the great testing behind these foods? I cannot find any tests, so therefore I cannot prove it for you.
How can someone come here and leave the message these foods have been tested for others to see without proof? If say, a father of an allergic baby, reads your comments and thinks these foods have been "heavily tested" and proof has not been provided, he may decide to only test for conventional soy (ex.), and not ask for testing for Bt, Roundup Ready, drought resistant,etc. A hard task, but probably doable if companies are contacted for samples.
And BTW, isn't calling someone a liar in these threads considered "abuse" in the guidelines. Why are you so upset? I have stated they have not tested and I am showing other people's opinions or articles a couple at a time, as are others.
And you know Reamond, I would really like it
if you were right. If I and many others are right the farmers in the US are in big trouble. I do not care about the multi-national companies. I do care about the little farmers (my family and friends) who weren't told, or haven't read about the law suits, land contamination and other countries attitudes.
They had a right-to-know, as did consumers
when the gm food and pharm-foods were being
planted on land next to conventional food
when these products were first allowed in.
posted on May 25, 2003 01:12:28 PM newI think you have one lie after another about your "experience" calling everybody but god about GM foods. All the info is out there, go find it yourself. I know for a fact that the patented genetics are open to the public, as well as the safety testing. I think there is a place in eastern Texas where the chicken little wackos live who are allergic to everything and think that the government is after them. I think some of you folks must live there.
typical name calling, I wouldn't even respond to these cheap taunts if I were you aposter.
You can blow smoke all you want about testing data being available reamond, but the fact is, in the US, testing is NOT mandated by the FDA. The gov't accepts as true whatever the biotech industry tells it about it's GM products. If this is NOT the case, let's see your test results proving the safety of GM foods, carried out by disinterested third parties. Like I said in a previous post...BETCHA CAN'T
The US Food and Drug Administration cannot guarantee the safety of genetically modified foods because it is unable to obtain all scientific data from biotech companies, a consumer group says.The Center for Science in the Public Interest said companies like Monsanto, Syngenta AG and Dow Chemical's Dow AgroSciences all declined to provide requested scientific data to the FDA about strains of genetically engineered insect-resistant corn.US biotech companies are encouraged, but not required, to submit food safety testing data to federal regulators for review. When the FDA requested additional information, biotech companies complied only half the time, according to an analysis of FDA data by the advocacy group."With a legally mandated approval process, the FDA can only review whatever data that a company lets it review," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, the group's science director and author of the report.The Center for Science in the Public Interest, which supports biotech crops, said gene-spliced foods currently being marketed appeared to be safe for consumers. However, it said the FDA was "ill-equipped" to assure the safety of more complex biotech foods in the future.FDA officials were not immediately available for comment.
edited to fix italic tags
___________________________________________
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
[ edited by profe51 on May 25, 2003 01:14 PM ]
posted on May 25, 2003 01:47:53 PM new
That is ok. I want him left on the boards so he can find his answers and post them!
This is from a few years ago, but interesting. I was trying to find
a chart that shows how the multi-nationals & researchers create transgenic seeds
but haven't been able to. I have a typed version somewhere. You will find other scientist's statements on this "Natural Law Party" site and well as some government documents used in a trial. I haven't checked those out yet.
Dr. Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer, to Dr. James Maryanski, FDA's Biotechnology Coordinator, about the Federal Register document "Statement of Policy: Foods from Genetically Modified Plants". Dated January 8, 1992
"A genetically engineered plant may contain an identical profile of expected plant toxicant levels (i.e. expected toxicants) as is normally found in a closely related, natural plant. However, genetically modified plants could also contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants. The presence of high levels of toxicants in the bioengineered food plant could occur by two or more mechanisms. For example, normal levels of toxicants could be amplified through enhancement of toxicant gene transcription and translation. This might occur as a result of up-stream or down-stream promotion of gene activities in the modified plant DNA. In addition, plant toxicant genes which were normally inactive could be expressed in the modified plant gene as a result of insertion of the new genetic material (i.e. positional mutagenesis). Thus, the task of analysis of all major toxins in genetically engineered plant food includes the assessment of both expected toxicants and unexpected toxicants that could occur in the modified plant food."
posted on May 25, 2003 02:03:56 PM new
This is an article about one of the
endosers on the first page of this thread, May 21st. The National Family Farm Coalition. http://www.nffc.net/
We need to ask why mainstream media hasn't picked up on all this, besides the occasional 3 second side swipe to say they have, that is.
Family farmers denounce U.S. complaint against the EU over genetically
modified organisms
(Wednesday, May 14, 2003 -- CropChoice news) -- The National Family Farm
Coalition (NFFC) denounced the U.S., Argentina, Canada and Egypt decision to challenge the European Union's authorization system on approval of genetically modified foods and crops at the World Trade
Organization.
“USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] Secretary Ann Veneman claims she’s fighting for the interests of ‘American Agriculture,’” said NFFC President George Naylor. “She must be fighting for the corporate agribusiness agenda because she is definitely not fighting for the interests of the family farmer.”
Nine other countries--Australia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru and Uruguay--supported the U.S. by filing the complaint as third parties before the WTO.
“We have suffered a great deal of damage to our trade markets because agribusiness pushed a product on U.S. farmers that people of the world rightfully refused to accept,” added Missouri farmer Bill Christison.
“Biotechnology is helping farmers increase yields, lower pesticide use, improve soil conservation and water pollution and help reduce hunger and poverty around the world,” Veneman claimed.
“The Secretary of Agriculture needs to educate herself about the ‘benefits of genetic engineering’ and not depend upon the Monsanto’s of the world for her information,” Christison said. “In fact, most--if not all--of the ‘benefits’ Veneman pointed out have been proven by much research to be totally off the mark.”
Christison shared his personal experience as testimony. “Where we applied chemicals on our farm, we used from 10-15 ounces of chemicals,” he said. “If I were using the round-up system, we would probably be
using from 60-75 ounces to achieve the same goal. And you know, massive uses of round-up facilitates a fungus which triggers sudden death syndrome in soybeans, greatly reducing yields.”
[ edited by aposter on May 25, 2003 02:08 PM ]
posted on May 25, 2003 02:31:39 PM new
Selling more seeds and more round-up,lock food producers into dependence upon the corporate ag. structure... that about sums up the goals of these companies. Talk about a sweet deal. All they have to do is tell the FDA "nope, according to our research, this here corn is substantially the same as unmodified corn" and they skate past any kind of science, which reamond holds so dear.Meanwhile, they are patenting the rights to seeds they have literally STOLEN from small farmers. Seeds those farmers willingly shared, never dreaming that by doing so they would lose the right to plant them.That the genetic code of a living thing can be "owned" by a corporate entity is utterly bizarre and frightening, but it is law. A stray protein is my tortilla chips doesn't really bother me. Huge multinational corporations, with virtually NO oversight on their products controlling our food supply does. This is not wacko conspiracy, it's happening right under our noses, right now. I fear it will continue, because as I said in the beginning, people desperately WANT, NEED to believe their food is safe. As long as someone out there is telling them it is, most will accept it without question...We worry about oil spills, nuclear disasters, dirty air...It may well be monocultural corporate agriculture that ends up being the environment's greatest threat.
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
posted on May 25, 2003 08:41:52 PM new
A question: Do the makers of gm foods intend to market them in supermarkets plainly labeled as such and let the consumers make an informed choice and let the market decideif they are accepable, or will they, like the food irradiation industry try to use deceptive labeling or or no labeling at all. A free market in my opinion can only exist if consumers are allowed to make informed decisions rather than being victimized by deliberate deceptive labeling practices. If these products and practices are so safe and good, why try to disguise them? The food irradiation industry has fought for years to avoid having to label these foods in a clear manner.
posted on May 25, 2003 09:07:33 PM new
Found these two articles in 2 minutes. GM foods will actually reduce allergic reactions and GM plant foods have been tested since at least 1999, but they have actually been tested longer than that. FYI, the test results were published in the British magazine Lancet.
I knew these half baked claims posted here of GM products being untested were untrue. They have been tested more than any other food source.
Biotech researchers create safer soybeans
The protein that causes the vast majority of allergic reactions to soybeans has been stripped out via genetic modification. It is being cited as an example of how GM technology can make food safer for consumers rather than simply line the pockets of seed manufacturers.
Soya allergy is most likely to affect children under five, although a small percentage of adults are also allergic to soya. Although the allergy can be severe, it mostly shows up as hives, itchy skin and diarrhoea. More than half of these allergic reactions are caused by one protein in soybeans, called P34.
Researchers with the US Department of Agriculture and biotechnology company Pioneer Hi-Bred International of Des Moines, Iowa, have now knocked out the P34 gene. And since last year soybeans without the protein have been grown in Hawaii.
To eliminate the offending protein, the team used an established "gene silencing" technique called sense suppression.
Unknown function
To do this, extra copies of the gene that codes for the P34 protein were spliced into the plant's DNA. Rather than increase production of the protein, this has the opposite effect. This is because the additional genes turn up production of messenger RNA that tells the cell to make the P34 protein.
The plant evidently interprets this surge of RNA as a sign of viral infection, so it destroys all the RNA and eventually suppresses the genes that make it - including the plant's original copy of the gene.
The researchers found that knocking out P34 caused no changes to other proteins in the plants, which seemed to grow as well as natural varieties. Although no one knows what the protein's function is, it does not seem to be necessary for the plant's health.
When blood serum taken from people allergic to soya was exposed to the modified beans, the scientists found no antibody response to the P34 protein, suggesting it had been successfully stripped out of the modified soybeans. The next step, says Anthony Kinney from Pioneer, is to test for allergic reactions in pigs and then humans.
And from 1999:
Arpad Pusztai is finally publishing a paper about his experiments on modified potatoes. But the meaning of his work remains unclear
AT LONG last, the research that soured many people's taste for genetically modified food is to be published in a scientific journal. More than a year after Arpad Pusztai claimed in a television interview that eating GM potatoes damaged the health of young rats, a paper describing some of his results will appear this week in The Lancet.
However, publication is unlikely to settle the issue. New Scientist has learnt that The Lancet sent the paper to six expert reviewers. Several advised against publication on the grounds that the results are impossible to interpret. David Sharp, The Lancet's deputy editor, says that the journal nevertheless published the paper because it was "high time these data were out in the open".
posted on May 25, 2003 09:24:06 PM new
Food Safety And Substantial Equivalence
Issue in Brief:
Biotech Foods Are Rigorously Tested to Ensure Safety
The committee is not aware of any evidence that foods on the market are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification.
National Academies, National Research Council,
Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation (2000)
Americans enjoy a food supply that is among the safest in the world. However, concerns have been expressed that biotech food products threaten the safety of the food supply.
There is no reason to believe that biotech foods pose a greater threat to human health than conventional foods. This is not to say they are risk free, but that they pose the same types of inherent risks to human health as conventional foods, e.g., they can contain allergens, toxins and antinutrients. Before marketing a biotech food, company scientists evaluate these risks, which are not usually evaluated in conventional foods. Animal feeds also are evaluated.
In fact, many scientists believe biotechnology may actually improve the safety testing of new foods. Consider that traditional breeding methods usually involve the mixing of tens of thousands of genes. While backcrossing can remove many undesirable qualities, there are still many uncharacterized genetic changes. For example, traditionally bred varieties of potato and celery were found to produce unacceptably high levels of toxins after they had already been put on the market.
With biotechnology, only a small amount of genetic material is transferred, and scientists know a great deal more about the changes being made. As a result, they are in a much better position to assess safety. For example, in the 1990s one biotech firm tried to improve the protein content of a soybean variety by transferring a gene from the Brazil nut. Subsequent testing showed that this gene encoded for an allergen, and the project was halted. Often cited as an example of what can go wrong, it demonstrates instead how good testing and knowing what to look for can lead to even greater safety. Indeed, plants and foods produced using biotechnology are among the most stringently tested in history.
Substantial Equivalence
Genetic manipulation by any means can lead to unexpected or seemingly unrelated changes in a food. These are the focus of any safety assessment. Under federal law, food producers have the legal responsibility to ensure that their products are safe to consume, and the Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency (for pest-protected plants) both have regulatory oversight authority. The food safety assessment for biotech products, whether performed by the FDA or the EPA, requires evaluation of the safety of the newly added DNA, its protein products and the overall balance of the food.
Guiding this assessment is the concept of "substantial equivalence," which was introduced by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 1993. Substantial equivalence is widely regarded as a sound basis for safeguarding the quality and safety of biotech foods and provides an historical context based on centuries of experience with conventional foods. In addition to the OECD, this standard has been validated by many international scientific and governmental organizations, including the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization and the International Life Science Institute. The FDA's 1992 Statement on Policy on biotech foods, which lays out the agency's approach to biotech regulation, is consistent with substantial equivalence, and many other government regulatory agencies also have adopted it in their regulatory reviews.
Stated simply, substantial equivalence holds that a biotech food is as safe to consume as an existing food with the same compositional and nutritional characteristics and a history of safe use. The main food-safety issues for biotech varieties crops are changes in allergenicity, toxicity, nutrient composition and level, unintended effects, and the safety of antibiotic-resistant marker-encoded proteins included with the transgene. This evaluation seeks to establish that the new varieties are as safe as or safer than crops produced by traditional methods.
Evaluating the substantial equivalence of a new food involves measuring the bioavailability and concentration of important nutrients in the food-such as proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, fats and oils-to ensure that they fall within the normal range of variability for the food. As many foods contain naturally occurring toxins and antinutrients, levels of these substances also are tested and compared. Immunological testing also is conducted. In contrast, there are relatively few analytical studies done on conventional varieties of crops during development.
Substantial equivalence is not the end of the safety assessment, but the beginning. The results of these analyses can yield three conclusions. The new food may be found: 1) substantially equivalent to a conventional counterpart; 2) substantially equivalent except for a few clearly defined differences; and 3) not substantially equivalent. Any significant differences between the biotech food and its conventional counterpart would trigger additional tests and mandatory labeling.
Some have contended that substantial equivalence overlooks effects that may be caused by the genetic transformation process itself, and therefore toxological testing of the whole food is required. In a controversial 1999 toxilogical study published in the British journal The Lancet, rats were fed a diet solely of either potatoes bioengineered to produce lectin (an insecticide), potatoes spiked with lectin, or wild potatoes. The researchers reported physiological damage for the first group only, leading them to conclude that the transformation process itself was responsible for the reported physiological changes.
Although much was initially made of this study, many scientists see it as seriously flawed. The decision to publish this study was even questioned by The Lancet's editors, who noted that it was rejected by half of the peer reviewers. Many of the authors' initial claims also were removed because they were unsupportable. Publication, said the editors, was "absolutely not a vindication" of the claims made by the authors. No subsequent research has reproduced the reported effects.
Toxilogical testing of whole foods is not performed on either biotech or conventional crops. Experts believe such tests are not feasible and would be of little value. A regulatory approach employing substantial equivalence ensures that biotech foods are at least as safe as their conventional counterparts.
In the future, biotech products will be designed with enhanced nutrition, taste, or other attribute that consumers want. Testing based largely on substantial equivalence will assure their safety and value.
Regulatory Oversight
Before a biotech food is submitted to regulators for approval, it has already undergone a series of tests by the food developer. The FDA has established guidelines that biotechnology companies follow when conducting safety reviews of new foods. These reviews include an assessment of toxicants, allergens and nutrient levels. If the original plant and the transferred trait have been consumed in the past without negative consequences, they are considered "generally recognized as safe" by the FDA.
If the original food or the transferred protein is new to the food supply, or if the transferred protein was derived from a food known to harbor allergens or toxicants, extensive testing is required. The FDA also reviews data on the nutrient content. Significant changes in nutrient levels of a new biotech food, compared with its traditional counterpart, would trigger a formal FDA review. Thus far, all biotech foods reviewed by FDA have exhibited compositional and nutritional characteristics within the normal range of variability, and peer-reviewed research has demonstrated the essential equivalence of biotech food and feed products and their conventional counterparts.
In cases where a trait is derived from a known allergen or the nutrient level is significantly different from comparable traditional foods, the FDA requires a special food label. Biotechnology companies now avoid using genes from foods known to harbor allergens or toxins. (For more information on biotechnology and allergenicity, click here.)
The EPA also regulates the safety of foods derived from pest-protected plants. For example, the proteins expressed in Bt crops, which incorporate genetic material from the common soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, are thoroughly tested to ensure that they do not pose a health risk.
In fact, Bt corn has been shown to reduce exposure to harmful substances. The fungus Fusarium moniliforme is known to thrive in corn damaged by the corn ear worm. Fusarium produces a mycotoxin, fumonisin, linked to esophageal cancer. Bt corn controls the corn ear worm, which makes it more difficult for Fusarium to establish itself.
For more on U.S. regulation of biotech crops and foods, click here.
Antibiotic Resistance
Another area of concern has been the use of antibiotic resistance markers in developing new plants. Antibiotic resistance is a growing problem in medicine, and there is a fear that horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to harmful bacteria in the human digestive tract could hasten the development of resistant bacterial strains, rendering some antibiotics useless.
Although antibiotic markers have been employed to produce most of the biotech plants currently on the market, they pose little to no risk. Antibiotic markers are used to trace introduced DNA and determine if a desired transfer was successful. However, their transfer to bacteria in the human gut is practically inconceivable for a number of reasons. For a successful DNA transfer from a plant food to a bacterium, a series of extremely unlikely events would have to occur: the DNA would have to survive digestion; the gene would have to breach the bacterium's defense; and it would have to be incorporated in the bacterium's DNA in exactly the right sequence. In the extremely improbable event that a successful exchange were to occur, selection pressure from an antibiotic would be required to make the newly resistant strain a common one.
The FDA examined this issue and determined that this procedure is safe. Further, no one has been able to demonstrate that such a transfer can occur, despite numerous experimental attempts to initiate one. In any event, scientists are developing alternative marker genes that do not involve antibiotic resistance, and biotechnology companies are removing all antibiotic resistance genes before a biotech crop is released.
Biotech Food and Feed Are Safe
In the many years in which biotech foods have been consumed, there has been no evidence that they are less safe than their conventional counterparts. In a 2000 report, a committee of the National Academies noted, "The committee is not aware of any evidence that foods on the market are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification," and other groups have reached similar conclusions. Because scientists know more about the changes being made when using biotechnology, plant breeders have a greater understanding of the changes being made, which places them in a better position to address food-safety issues. Rigorous testing from product development through commercialization will ensure that biotech products remain safe.
posted on May 25, 2003 09:40:28 PM new
And here is just some of the abstracts of the scientific research done on GM foods.
SAFETY OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
9
Nordlee, J. A., Talyor, S. L., Townsend, J. A., Thomas, L. A., Beach, L. R.; Editors:
Eisenbrand, G., Aulepp, H., Dayan, A. D., Elias, P. S., Grunow, W., Ring, J., Schlatter,
J., Köhl, W., Baum, M. 1996. Transgenic Soybeans Containing Brazil Nut 2S Storage
Protein: Issues Regarding Allergenicity. Food Allergies And Intolerances: Symposium.
Ch. 15. Publisher: VCH, DFG, Weinheim: 196-202.
Nordlee, J.A., Taylor, S.L., Townsend, J..A., Thomas, L.A., Bush, R.K. 1996.
Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. New England Journal of
Medicine 334: 726-728.
Okunuki, H., Teshima, R., Shigeta, T., Sakushima, J., Akiyama, H., Goda, Y., Toyoda,
M., Sawada, J. 2002. Increased Digestibility of Two Products in Genetically Modified
Food - CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab - after Preheating. Journal Food Hygiene Society.
43(2): 68-73.
Penninks, A.H., Knippels, L.M. 2001. Determination of protein allergenicity: studies in
rats. Toxicology Letters 120: 171-180.
Taylor, S. L.; Editors: Jones, D. D. 1994. Evaluation of the Allergenicity of Foods
Developed Through Biotechnology. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium
on the Biosafety Results of Field Tests of Genetically Modified Plants and
Microorganisms. Publisher: University of California, Oakland: 185-198.
Taylor, S.L., Herfle, S.L. 2000. Will genetically modified foods be allergenic? Journal of
Allergy and Clinical Immunology 107: 765-771.
Vieths, S. 1998. Allergenic Potential Of Genetically Modified Plant Foods - How
Reliable Is The Proposed Assessment Strategy (question). Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Novel Foods Regulation in the European Union - Integrity of
the Process of Safety Evaluation - November 18-20, 1997, Berlin, Germany. Publisher:
Federal Institute of Conumer Health Protection and Veterinary Medicine: 295-309.
Technical Publications on Biotech
Products
April 16, 2002 1
General - Biotechnology
2000. IFT Expert Report on Biotechnology and Foods: Benefits and Concerns
Associated with Recombinant DNA. Food Technology: 54(10): 61-80.
2000. IFT Expert Report On Biotechnology And Foods: Backgrounder - Recombinant
Dna Biotechnology In Balance: Benefits And Concerns Of A New Technology. Institute
of Food Technologists. 1-5.
2000. IFT Expert Report On Biotechnology And Foods: Frequently Asked Questions
About Benefits And Concerns. Institute of Food Technologists: 1-2.
2000. IFT Expert Report On Biotechnology And Foods: Introduction. FoodTechnology
54(8): 124-136.
2000. Transgenic Plants And World Agriculture. Royal Society.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/files/ statfiles/document-116.pdf : 1-20.
Atanassov, A., Antonov, L., Twardowski, T., Altman, A. [EDITOR], Ziv, M. [EDITOR],
Izhar, S. [EDITOR]. 1999. Commercial Needs And Creating New Markets In Eastern
European Countries. Current Plant Science and Biotechnology in Agriculture, Plant
biotechnology and in vitro biology in the 21st century. Proceedings of the IXth
International Congress of the International Association of Plant Tissue Culture and
Biotechnology, Jerusalem, Israel, 14-19 June 1998 36: 685 - 688.
Bajaj, S., Targolli, J., Liu, L., Ho, D., Wu, R. 1999. Transgenic approaches to increase
dehydration stress tolerance in plants. Molecular Breeding 5(6): 493-503.
Braunchweiger G., Conzelmann, C., Editors: Schreiber, G. A., Bogl, K. W. 1997. Food
Industry Supplies Obtained through Genetic Modification: What’s Already In The
Market? Food Produced By Means Of Genetically Engineering. Bundesinstitüt für
gesundheitlichen Vervraucherschutz und Veterinarmedizin, Berlin
Demicheli, M. C. 1997. Realizing the Potential of Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe.
Outlook On Agriculture 26: 79-85.
Doran, PM. 2000. Foreign Protein Production In Plant Tissue Cultures. Current Opinion
in Biotechnology 11(2): 199 - 204.
Fedoroff, N., Cohen, J. 1999. Plants And Population: Is There Time. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96: 5903-5907.
Goto, F., Yoshihara, T., Shigemoto, N., Toki, S., Takaiwa, F. 1999. Iron Fortification Of
Rice Seed By The Soybean Ferritin Gene. Nature Biotechnology. 17(3): 282-286.
Technical Publications on Biotech
Products
April 16, 2002 5
Hartnell, G., Fuchs, R. 1999. Fifteenth Annual Carolina Swine Nutrition Conference -Current
And Future Value Of Innovative Technology In Genetically Modified Grains And
Oilseeds. Carolina Feed Industry Association: 68-85.
Heyer A. G., Lloyd, J. R., Kossmann, J. 1999. Production of Modified Polymeric
Carbohydrates. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 10: 169-174.
Hirschberg, J. 1999. Production of High-Value Compounds: Carotenoids and Vitamin E.
Current Opinion in Biotechnology.10: 186-191.
James, C. 1998. Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops 1998. ISAAA
Briefs (Brief 8): 1-52.
James, C. 1999. Preview Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1999.
ISAAA Briefs (Brief 12): 1-16.
James, C. 2000. Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1999. ISAAA Brief.
17: 1-78.
James, C. 2000. Preview: Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2000.
ISAAA Brief. 21: 1-18.
Johnson, C. S. 2000. Genetic Enhancement of Crops: The Major Way Remaining to
Ensure Global Food Security. Diversity 15(4): 22-24.
Kendall, H., Beachy, R., Eisner, T., Gould, F., Herdt, R., Raven, P., Swaminathan, M.,
Schell, J. 1997. Bioengineering of Crops Report of the World Bank Panel on Transgenic
Crops. Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Studies and Monographs
Series No. 23. Series: Environmentally Sustainable Development Studies, Proceedings,
and Monographs (23): 1-33.
Ku, M., Agarie, S., Nomura, M., Fukayama, H., Tsuchida, H., Ono, K., Hirose, S., Toki,
S., Miyao, M., Matsuoka, M. 1999. High Level Expression of Maize Pcarboxylase in
Transgenic Rice Plants. Nature Biotechnology 17: 76-80.
Langridge, W. 2000. Edible Vaccines. Scientific America. 283(3): 66-71.
Mackey, M., Santerre, C. 2000. Biotechnology and Our Food Supply. Nutrition Today
35(4): 120-127.
Mann, C. 1999. Genetic Engineers Aim to Soup Up Crop Photosynthesis. Science
283 (5400): 314-316.
Mann, C. 1999. Crop Scientists Seek a New Revolution. Science 283(5400): 310-314.
Technical Publications on Biotech
Products
April 16, 2002 6
Mason H., Arntzen, C. 1995. Transgenic Plants as Vaccine Production Systems. Trends
in Biotechnology 13: 388-392.
Murphy D. 1996. Engineering Oil Production in Rapeseed and Other Oil Crops. Trends
in Biotechnology 14: 206-213.
Phipps, R. 2000. GM Crops: An Alternative View to Greenpeace. Feed Compounder:
1-4.
Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M., Guerinot, M. L. 2000. To Improve Nutrition For The World's
Population. Science 288, 5473:1966 - 1967.
Pletsch, M., Araujo, B., de Charlwood, B., de Araujo, B. 1999. Novel Biotechnological
Approaches In Environmental Remediation Research. Biotechnology Advances 17(8):
679-687.
Poirer, Y. 1999. Production of New Polymeric Compounds in Plants. Current Opinion in
Biotechnology 10: 181-185.
Streatfield, S., Jilka, J., Hood, E., Turner, D., Bailey, M., Mayor, J., Woodard, S., Beifuss,
K., Horn, M., Delaney, D., Tizard, I., Howard, J. 2001. Plant-based vaccines: Unique
Advantages. Vaccine 19: 2742-2748.
Smith, N. Seeds of Opportunity: An Assessment of the Benefits, Safety, and Oversight of
Plant Genomics and Agricultural Biotechnology. Subcommittee on Basic Research.
http://www.house.gov/science/smithreport_041300.pdf: 1-83.
Tacket, C., Mason, H., Losonsky, G., Estes, M., Levine, M., Arntzen, C. 2000. Human
Immune Responses to a Novel Norwalk Virus Vaccine Delivered in Transgenic Potatoes.
The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 182: 302-305.
Willmitzer L. 19999. Plant Biotechnology: Output Traits – The Second Generation of
Plant Biotechnology Products in Gaining Momentum. Current Opinion in Biotechnology.
10: 161-162.
Winicov, I. 1998. New Molecular Approaches to Improving Salt Tolerance in Crop
Plants. Annals of Botany (London) 82 (6): 703-710.
SAFETY OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
1
ANALYSIS FOR DNA/PROTEIN –FROM ANIMALS FED BIOTECH
CROPS
Milk
Aumaitre, A., Aulrich, K., Chesson, A., Flachowsky, G., Piva, G. 2002. New Feeds
From Genetically Modified Plants - Substantial Equivalence, Nutritional Equivalence,
Digestibility, And Safety For Animals And The Food Chain. Livestock Production
Science. 74. 3: 223-238.
Faust, M., Miller, L. 1997. Study Finds No Bt in Milk. Iowa State University Integrated
Crop Management Newsletter IC-478 (Special Livestock Edition):1.
Klotz, A., Eispainer, R. 1998. Detection of "Novel-Feed" in animals? Injury of
consumers of meat and milk is not expected. Mais (3): 109-111.
Phipps, R., Beever, D., and Tingey, A. 2001. Detection of transgenic DNA in bovine
milk: Results for cows receiving a TMR containing maize grain modified for insect
protection (MON810). J. Anim. Sci. 79:476, 2001.
Phipps, R., Beever, D., Humphries, D. 2002. Detection Of Transgenic Dna In Milk From
Cows Receiving Herbicide Tolerant (cp4epsps) Soyabean Meal. Livestock Production
Science. 74(3): 269 - 273.
SAFETY OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
2
Meat/Eggs
2000. Genetically Modified Crops - Impact on Meat, Milk and Eggs. FASS - Federation
of Animal Science Societies. 8-30-2000, http://www.fass.org/fassfact.pdf: 1-4.
Ash, J., Scheideler, S. E., Novak, C. L. 2000. The Fate of Genetically Modified Protein
From Roundup Ready® Soybeans In The Laying Hen. Poultry Sciences (Supp 1): 26.
Aumaitre, A., Aulrich, K., Chesson, A., Flachowsky, G., Piva, G 2002. New Feeds From
Genetically Modified Plants - Substantial Equivalence, Nutritional Equivalence,
Digestibility, And Safety For Animals And The Food Chain. Livestock Production
Science. 74. 3: 223-238.
Cromwell, G.,, Lindemann, M., Randolph, J., Stanisiewski, E., Hartnell, G. Soybean
Meal from Roundup Ready  or Conventional Soybeans in Diets for Growing-Finishing
Pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 79: 1318, 2001.
Khumnirdpetch, V., Udomsri Intarachote, A., Treemanee, S., Tragoonroong, S.,
Thummabood, S. Detection Of Gmos In The Broilers That Utilized Genetically Modified
Soybeanmeals As A Feed Ingredient. Plant and Animal Genome IX Conf., San Diego,
CA (Poster 585); 13-17 Jan 2001.
McAllan, A. 1980. The degradation of nucleic acids in, and the removal of breakdown
products from the small intestines of steers. Br. J. Nutr.: 99-112.
McAllan, A. 1982. The fate of nucleic acids in ruminants. Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society. 41: 309-317.
Reuter, T., Aulrich, K., Berk, A., Flachowsky, G. Nutritional Evaluation of Bt-corn in Pigs.
J. Anim. Sci. 79 1073, 2001.
posted on May 26, 2003 07:03:35 AM new
If you put a little data on top of that, Reamond, your post might look like T.S. Eliot. Questions still remain about whether transgenic food will be safe to eat. And, in addition to the safety issue there is a regulatory issue as this story about salmon illustrates. According to the article, the FDA is using drug laws to regulate fish. As a result of this failure to regulate, genetically engineered fish may be introduced into the waters of the U.S.
While a faster-growing salmon is the first transgenic animal the biotech industry is seeking to introduce to US markets, it will certainly not be the last. Scientists worldwide have altered the genes of at least 30 other aquatic species, including flounder, carp, lobster, and shrimp for both scientific study and commercial production. And on the farm, pigs that produce meat with less fat, chickens that resist bacterial infections, and cows that can grow faster on less feed are also said to be in the pipeline.
posted on May 26, 2003 07:09:13 AM new
ummm...guess you forgot to mention the source of this "research"...it's all available word for word, on Monsanto's website..
That you could take as acceptable research any list published by this company is truly astounding. Monsanto has flagrantly violated crop regulations all over the world, and allowed several of it's GM seeds to escape into the wild, polluting local landraces in several places VERY distant from the point of escape, while it punishes farmers for replanting crops it holds patents on. Pretty soon, when there is only ONE kind of corn, Monsanto will be able to sue everyone who doesn't pay for a license. Here's a keyword search on Monsanto. I won't forget to mention that the articles are all linked from CropChoice, which is a news clearing house for North American farmers dedicated to diversity in agriculture.
I found especially amusing the reports from Tennessee that Round up resistant weeds are becoming a problem in fields where Roundup Ready crops have been grown for several years, and that farmers are actually applying MORE pounds of weedkillers since beginning to grow these crops.. Funny, I thought Monsanto wanted to feed the poor and help the environment, not sell more Roundup
The "safety" of bioengineered crops is only the tip of the iceberg.
My sister,who is a diabetic, lived on diet colas, because she thought they were the only soda she could drink.She would drink 5 to 7 a day and always thirsty.
We both thought the diabetes was the reason for the thirst.I finally convinced sister to get off the diet drinks,a month ago.Her sugar went from wild rides of 175 to 300,to a modest 75 and a high of 120(one day).She no longer has the thirst,and no longer has the cravings for certain sweets and starchs.
Now she drinks a regular coke(one) or tea,I dont like refined sugars ,but in this case,sugar seems less of a problem.
posted on May 26, 2003 08:47:48 AM new
The life of a milk cow is 5 years.In that 5 years she is pumped full of chemicals to put her in a pregnant state to mass produce milk.That cow stands in the same stall all of her life,Pretty sad when you consider her life on a regular farm,she might have lived to be 20 or 25 years old,and her milk would have been safe for consumption.
posted on May 26, 2003 08:59:45 AM new
We have always been guinea
hens.
And some day Canada will wake up to what our experiments over their skys unleashed.
1931 Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. While there, he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.
1932 The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated.
1935 The Pellagra Incident. After millions of individuals die from Pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease. The director of the agency admits it had known for at least 20 years that Pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency but failed to act since most of the deaths occured within poverty-striken black populations.
1940 Four hundred prisoners in Chicago are infected with Malaria in order to study the effects of new and experimental drugs to combat the disease. Nazi doctors later on trial at Nuremberg cite this American study to defend their own actions during the Holocaust.
1942 Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on approximately 4,000 servicemen. The experiments continue until 1945 and made use of Seventh Day Adventists who chose to become human guinea pigs rather than serve on active duty.
1943 In response to Japan's full-scale germ warfare program, the U.S. begins research on biological weapons at Fort Detrick, MD.
1944 U.S. Navy uses human subjects to test gas masks and clothing. Individuals were locked in a gas chamber and exposed to mustard gas and lewisite.
1945 Project Paperclip is initiated. The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence, and the CIA recruit Nazi scientists and offer them immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top secret government projects in the United States.
1945 "Program F" is implemented by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This is the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoride, which was the key chemical component in atomic bomb production. One of the most toxic chemicals known to man, fluoride, it is found, causes marked adverse effects to the central nervous system but much of the information is squelched in the name of national security because of fear that lawsuits would undermine full-scale production of atomic bombs.
1946 Patients in VA hospitals are used as guinea pigs for medical experiments. In order to allay suspicions, the order is given to change the word "experiments" to "investigations" or "observations" whenever reporting a medical study performed in one of the nation's veteran's hospitals.
1947 Colonel E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Comission issues a secret document (Document 07075001, January 8, 1947) stating that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects.
1947 The CIA begins its study of LSD as a potential weapon for use by American intelligence. Human subjects (both civilian and military) are used with and without their knowledge.
1950 Department of Defense begins plans to detonate nuclear weapons in desert areas and monitor downwind residents for medical problems and mortality rates.
1950 I n an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Franciso. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms.
1951 Department of Defense begins open air tests using disease-producing bacteria and viruses. Tests last through 1969 and there is concern that people in the surrounding areas have been exposed.
1953 U.S. military releases clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, Virginia. Their intent is to determine how efficiently they could disperse chemical agents.
1953 Joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in which tens of thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii.
1953 CIA initiates Project MKULTRA. This is an eleven year research program designed to produce and test drugs and biological agents that would be used for mind control and behavior modification. Six of the subprojects involved testing the agents on unwitting human beings.
1955 The CIA, in an experiment to test its ability to infect human populations with biological agents, releases a bacteria withdrawn from the Army's biological warfare arsenal over Tampa Bay, Fl.
1955 Army Chemical Corps continues LSD research, studying its potential use as a chemical incapacitating agent. More than 1,000 Americans participate in the tests, which continue until 1958.
1956 U.S. military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, Ga and Avon Park, Fl. Following each test, Army agents posing as public health officials test victims for effects.
1958 LSD is tested on 95 volunteers at the Army's Chemical Warfare Laboratories for its effect on intelligence.
1960 The Army Assistant Chief-of-Staff for Intelligence (ACSI) authorizes field testing of LSD in Europe and the Far East. Testing of the european population is code named Project THIRD CHANCE; testing of the Asian population is code named Project DERBY HAT.
1965 Project CIA and Department of Defense begin Project MKSEARCH, a program to develop a capability to manipulate human behavior through the use of mind-altering drugs.
1965 Prisoners at the Holmesburg State Prison in Philadelphia are subjected to dioxin, the highly toxic chemical component of Agent Orange used in Viet Nam. The men are later studied for development of cancer, which indicates that Agent Orange had been a suspected carcinogen all along.
1966 CIA initiates Project MKOFTEN, a program to test the toxicological effects of certain drugs on humans and animals.
1966 U.S. Army dispenses Bacillus subtilis variant niger throughout the New York City subway system. More than a million civilians are exposed when army scientists drop lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates.
1967 CIA and Department of Defense implement Project MKNAOMI, successor to MKULTRA and designed to maintain, stockpile and test biological and chemical weapons.
1968 CIA experiments with the possibility of poisoning drinking water by injecting chemicals into the water supply of the FDA in Washington, D.C.
1969 Dr. Robert MacMahan of the Department of Defense requests from congress $10 million to develop, within 5 to 10 years, a synthetic biological agent to which no natural immunity exists.
1970 Funding for the synthetic biological agent is obtained under H.R. 15090. The project, under the supervision of the CIA, is carried out by the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, the army's top secret biological weapons facility. Speculation is raised that molecular biology techniques are used to produce AIDS-like retroviruses.
1970 United States intensifies its development of "ethnic weapons" (Military Review, Nov., 1970), designed to selectively target and eliminate specific ethnic groups who are susceptible due to genetic differences and variations in DNA.
1975 The virus section of Fort Detrick's Center for Biological Warfare Research is renamed the Fredrick Cancer Research Facilities and placed under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) . It is here that a special virus cancer program is initiated by the U.S. Navy, purportedly to develop cancer-causing viruses. It is also here that retrovirologists isolate a virus to which no immunity exists. It is later named HTLV (Human T-cell Leukemia Virus).
1977 Senate hearings on Health and Scientific Research confirm that 239 populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969. Some of the areas included San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Key West, Panama City, Minneapolis, and St. Louis.
1978 Experimental Hepatitis B vaccine trials, conducted by the CDC, begin in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men.
1981 First cases of AIDS are confirmed in homosexual men in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, triggering speculation that AIDS may have been introduced via the Hepatitis B vaccine
1985 According to the journal Science (227:173-177), HTLV and VISNA, a fatal sheep virus, are very similar, indicating a close taxonomic and evolutionary relationship.
1986 According to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (83:4007-4011), HIV and VISNA are highly similar and share all structural elements, except for a small segment which is nearly identical to HTLV. This leads to speculation that HTLV and VISNA may have been linked to produce a new retrovirus to which no natural immunity exists.
1986 A report to Congress reveals that the U.S. Government's current generation of biological agents includes: modified viruses, naturally occurring toxins, and agents that are altered through genetic engineering to change immunological character and prevent treatment by all existing vaccines.
1987 Department of Defense admits that, despite a treaty banning research and development of biological agents, it continues to operate research facilities at 127 facilities and universities around the nation.
1990 More than 1500 six-month old black and hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given an "experimental" measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected to their children was experimental.
1994 With a technique called "gene tracking," Dr. Garth Nicolson at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX discovers that many returning Desert Storm veterans are infected with an altered strain of Mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe commonly used in the production of biological weapons. Incorporated into its molecular structure is 40 percent of the HIV protein coat, indicating that it had been man-made.
1994 Senator John D. Rockefeller issues a report revealing that for at least 50 years the Department of Defense has used hundreds of thousands of military personnel in human experiments and for intentional exposure to dangerous substances. Materials included mustard and nerve gas, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals, hallucinogens, and drugs used during the Gulf War .
1995 U.S. Government admits that it had offered Japanese war criminals and scientists who had performed human medical experiments salaries and immunity from prosecution in exchange for data on biological warfare research.
1995 Dr. Garth Nicolson, uncovers evidence that the biological agents used during the Gulf War had been manufactured in Houston, TX and Boca Raton, Fl and tested on prisoners in the Texas Department of Corrections.
1996 Department of Defense admits that Desert Storm soldiers were exposed to chemical agents.
1997 Eighty-eight members of Congress sign a letter demanding an investigation into bioweapons use & Gulf War Syndrome.
Home I Topics I News I Links I Search I Reports I Books I Products I e-mail
posted on May 26, 2003 09:01:52 AM new
jmama, have you read anything about Stevia?
You might want to check it out as an alternative to sugar for your sister. Some researchers were saying they thought it might regulate diabetics blood sugar levels while being used as a suger substitute.
It can be purchased at places like Whole Foods. The plants could be purchased on eBay
last year, at least.
Reamond, there are many researchers AND consumers and who are very unhappy with the NAS. The National Academy is a combination ofNational Academy of Science,
Nat'l Acad of Engineering and Nat'l Acad of Medicine.
I don't have a lot of time today but wanted to give those who aren't having picnics, something to read. If you click on the first link here you get lists of some of the NA, NAC members and their workplaces, many who helped with the paper you posted no doubt.
Under "P" you will find Pharmacia, once owned by Monsanto, under "N" find Novartis Seeds, under "C" find Cogene Biotech Ventures. Those are under "work institutions" it I go in and check under individual names many more interesting ones will come up I suspect.
Reamond. I don't understand why you insist on saying someone who has researched is a liar. You must really have the impression our governmental workers, (our public servants)like heads of NIH Allergy & Infectious Diseases Institute are not
accessible at times. They are. They were at conferences on biotech foods, pesticides, etc. All one had to do was sign up. Maybe you should have?
Unfortunately since Bush took office many of the phone numbers that used to be available were eliminated from the phone book and it takes a bit of doing to get to certain offices. Although it may not have been Bush, but more the fact the heat was on. Those people are JUST public servants, no better than either of us or anyone reading this. They live in the same communities I live in and many more live and work in the area where my office is located. You don't have to be a rocket science to read some, and ask questions. These people are to be respected as we consumers should also be, but are not.
NO more, NO less.
No one said transgenic foods, plants or medicines weren't researched prior
to marketing. Some have been researched after they have been released by the companies. The point is that the burden
of proof is ALL on the companies who stand to profit. No allergy testing
is being done in allergist’s offices or blood labs. Or at least it wasn’t a year ago when I called last. I understand from others
they have not been successful in finding testing either.
Anything that brings about a glowing blue fish, a fast growing tree, naturally glowing Christmas tree, grass or seed crops that can survive Roundup or Liberty, or a tomato with fish genes has to have been researched alot to even get the foreign gene needed. But, researched to get it to perform, not necessarily to make that whole procedure safe.
Question..." I don't know if it's possible by conventional breeding techniques to create a mega-salmon. But if you did, would you regulate it?"
Answer... "Right now, we're trying to parse out where it is we actually want to regulate our regulatory authority. I really don't want to regulate your transgenic mice"
"Apparently genetic modification by trial and error, we don't regulate, but when we know what we're doing then we will regulate it."
"You talked about assessing internal strengths and weaknesses and internal and external threats and opportunities. I would hope you would also assess internal threats and opportunities."
posted on May 26, 2003 09:56:08 AM new
aposter,That Stevia sounds interesting,I believe I read where it is 10 calories to a pound.And you dont measure it by spoons,You might dampen a tip of your finger and stick it in the Stevia and then your tea.I like that...
posted on May 26, 2003 10:29:43 AM new
Here's the link to the State Dept.'s publication of FDA "requirements" for GM foods. A cursory reading would make you think that all is well. Closer inspection reveals that the fox (Monsanto, et al) is clearly in charge of the henhouse. Note in particular the closing paragraph:
The current FDA consultation process described above is voluntary, although, to date, all companies have made use of it prior to commercializing any bioengineered food in the United States.
VOLUNTARY!
In other words, the FDA has no option other than to take what data Monsanto and it's pals give them as the truth. If they don't accept it, too bad, the whole process is voluntary anyway.
posted on May 26, 2003 10:52:23 AM newReamond. I don't understand why you insist on saying someone who has researched is a liar
You keep saying they have been tested. Prove it. And I hope to God you can come up with something
I spoke to a person at the FDA about 3 months ago and ask what new research was being done by our government to insure citizen’s safety as more mutants hit the market.She said none
Prove it, damn it. Don’t just keep saying they have been tested. Spit it out
I'll say it again, you're a liar and I did prove it
There is tons of testing research out there openly available and GM foods have been tested more than any other food you eat.
posted on May 26, 2003 03:23:43 PM new
Helen, if I didn't know better I would think
Reamond is goading me to dig up information.
Whatta ya think? Is that right Reamond? Are you one of the people who get information here to ruin auctions?
I hate to tell you R but I haven't had anything published, nor do I have anything
on line like a website to find.
It is okay for you to be skeptical of this. Free country. Just think about the coverups
we have had. President Kennedy, American Catholic church's priests, Love Canal, Wind
drift from the atomic bomb testing, and of course Iraq's WOMD ready to get us at any momment (so far). I know there are more.
posted on May 28, 2003 06:08:15 AM new
Sorry this is long, but I can't figure out what to delete. So many of us believe we are being protected by the FDA and USDA and the truth is we are not. Farmers are getting the message though.
5/15/2003
What's the rush to sell the GMO corn, farmer wonders
-------------------------------------------
by Robert Schubert CropChoice editor
(Thursday, May 15, 2003 -- CropChoice news) -- Jerry Rosman says the government sold his genetically engineered corn, a type that the European Union does not accept for human use, to Cargill for processing into food
and feed products. [b]In addition, some scientists believe that something in
the corn may have played a role in the false pregnancies among Rosman's sow herd.[/b]
"I don't think there's a farmer out here who would knowingly put an unsafe product on the consumer's plate. But the government and Cargill did," said Rosman, a former Iowa corn and hog farmer. He had received a loan
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency to grow the corn. However, an extended civil lawsuit within the family partnership put the corn under control of the court. It also tied up Rosman's money so that he couldn't pay back the loan. Eventually, the court turned the
corn over to the FSA.
Did the U.S. Department of Agriculture tell Cargill about the genetically modified organisms? If so, why did Cargill accept the corn given its policy on biotech food bound for Europe? If not, why didn't Cargill's
tests detect the unwanted genetics? Why didn't USDA listen to calls from Rosman, farm and environmental organizations to keep the corn so that scientists could continue researching the possible relationship between
mycotoxins and the pseudopregnancies?
Bert Farrish, deputy administrator for commodity operations of the USDA's Farm Service Agency, said about 19,000 bushels of the corn were delivered to Koster Grain Co. in Iowa early in February.
However, one of the haulers, who wished to remain anonymous, said he took the corn to the Cargill plant in Blair, Neb. It processes corn into sweetener and oil for use in human food, and produces gluten and lysine for livestock feed.
The corn was weighed at the Hancock Grain Company's scale in Portsmouth, Iowa, said Rosman, emphasizing that the government wanted to cover the tracks to Cargill.
The problem with Cargill taking the corn was that the insect- and herbicide-resistant corn is on the list of varieties that the company supposedly won't accept. According to the February and current "Cargill-AGM Daily Word" newsletters:
"...We cannot accept any corn varieties that are not approved in the European Union. Hybrids we can NOT accept include the following:
*Biotech Trait Name
*Roundup Ready((r)) Corn (all hybrids and stacks)
*YieldGard/Roundup Ready Corn
*Herculex I((r)) Corn
*YieldGard((r)) + Liberty Link((r)) Corn
*YieldGard((r)) Rootworm corn and any stacks (approval pending)."
Rosman grew the first, second and fourth on the list.
"It's important to remember," Rosman said, " that all of the grain is dumped into the same pits and moved about on the same conveyor system." A number of grain haulers, who wished to remain anonymous, agreed.
Although they are approved for livestock feed in Europe, lack of segregation at the plant means they likely are used to produce oil and sweetener, the processing of which supposedly removes the genetically modified traits.
In Rosman's view, the USDA, in taking title to the corn last year, broke the Monsanto technology agreement he had signed by selling the corn to Cargill. That agreement had made him, not Monsanto, responsible for
steering his harvest out of European Union food chanels.
Cargill challenged Rosman's charge of product misrepresentation.
"We inspect, test and re-test every load and are confident of the quality of every product that leaves our facilities," said Cargill spokesman Bill Brady. He wouldn't comment on the Rosman corn purchase.
And then there's the issue of the false pregnancies in Rosman's sow herd.
The Iowa Farmers Union and the environmental organization Friends of the Earth last year implored the government to prevent the corn from entering the food and feed supply. Keeping the corn would allow for scientific
analysis of known and unknown mycotoxins that might have contributed to
pseudopregnancies in Rosman's and others' sow herds. It was for this reason that scientists with the Agricultural Research Service and environmental groups wrote to the judge in the family lawsuit that the
corn be kept.
The USDA seemed to understand. It granted Rosman two 30-day extentsions on his loans. But in early November the Department changed course and tried to sell 950 bushels to an area ethanol plant. It rejected the corn
because of high fusarium levels. Producing ethanol from corn with a toxin tends to concentrate the them in the gluten by-product that is used as animal feed, Rosman said.
Afterward, the FSA agreed to another unspecified extension that would allow the groups to obtain the money to buy the corn. But in January, the G&R Grain and Feed Company in Portsmouth bought the corn and mixed it with its other feed grain.
[b] That action prompted Chris Peterson of the Iowa Farmers Union to ask why Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman would "allow her Department to sell this corn to a feed company before finishing a scientific investigation to learn if it is harmful to pigs or other farm animals? We want sound
science to avoid reproductive problems in Iowa's swine herds. Independent hog farmers have told us that this problem could be the final blow to their farms."[/b]
Friends of the Earth purchased 5,500 bushels and is trying to buy the remaining 15,000 to hold for research.
[b] The January sale of 950 bushels and February's deal with Cargill for the
19,000 bushels makes make it appear that USDA is hiding something, Rosman
said. "Why doesn't it want the corn tested? Why would the Commodity Credit Corporation, which overseas hundreds of millions of bushels of grain, be in such a rush to get rid of this corn? Why is USDA pressuring
researchers not to study the corn?"[/b]
Edited for bolding, maybe.
[ edited by aposter on May 28, 2003 06:11 AM ]
Enter your email address above to receive free email updates from In These Times editors.
Order the Bush Joker Card
poster today! Only $14.99.
Recent Features
Food Fight
Europe and America gear up for a confrontation at the WTO
By Amanda Castleman | 5.9.03 print | email | comment
European protesters tear up genetically modified plants at a farm in Warwickshire, England.
Europeans have never liked genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. The products—nicknamed “Frankenfoods”—have been banned in Europe for the past five years.
These days, Europeans fear long-term health consequences and environmental contamination. They want to track GMOs from the seed sack to the dinner table, so any trouble can be quickly pinpointed and controlled. And they demand labels on all modified products, giving each citizen the ability to choose whether to purchase them.
But the outright GMO ban ends this year, and the European Union is renegotiating its policy. Politicians have been slowly hammering out the details of the plan, amid fierce public protests. But many member states—including Italy, France, Greece, Austria and Denmark—remain dubious. Their demands for maximum protection have delayed action.
Now, America plans to administer a force-feeding. The United States—peeved by the loss of $300 million in agricultural sales each year—is threatening to spark a trade war over GMOs.
In February, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and several other members of Congress urged the Bush administration to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization. U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick also advocates a WTO case, but prefers strength in numbers. In January, he called for an international coalition against “Luddite” Europe. Only Argentina, another GMO breadbasket, has expressed any interest in the crusade.
The bluster has not impressed politicians across the pond. E.U. Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy responded: “If there was to be litigation, of course we would fight it, and I believe we would win it.”
A WTO case is far more likely to alienate Europeans than persuade them, E.U. officials warn. They have asked the Bush administration to be patient and allow the political process to unfold. At a February press conference, Franz Fischler, the E.U. farm commissioner, explained: “We are in the final phases of passing our laws in Parliament, and we would strongly advise not to start an action that would disrupt that.”
Expecting a renewed push now that the war in Iraq is over, Europeans remain wary. The philosophical rift between Europe and the United States over GMOs is wider—and stormier—than the Atlantic. America unflinchingly added GMOs to the menu in 1996 (though a modified tomato had flopped two years before). Experts estimate that 70 percent of processed goods in U.S. supermarkets contain engineered ingredients.
Soybeans, corn and canola oil are the main genetically engineered crops in America. These staples appear in bread, cereal, crackers, flour, pasta, margarine, chocolate, candy and ice cream. Not even infant formula is au naturel any more—though manufacturers are not required to indicate that on the packaging.
So far, biotech companies have filed 19 applications to sell genetically modified products in Europe. Many Europeans see this as selling out to agribusiness and international pressure. American critics consider the E.U. application process a sham that would require U.S. growers to completely transform their processes for growing and storing food.
Europeans might agree. Because of the way they’re grown, says Pete Riley from Friends of the Earth U.K., few American crops would pass muster. “The European market wants to track food from the field to the plate,” he says.
The intent is to be able to quickly pre-empt disasters like the outbreak of mad cow disease that struck Europe during the ’90s. “We see this as quite modern and 21st century,” Riley continues, “while the American system seems quite backward and 17th century.”
Yet trade officials are unlikely to respect Europe’s autonomy when agribusiness companies like Monsanto are faltering financially. A WTO case could last three years, sparking immense bitterness between the two blocs.
Improperly handled, modified genes could imbalance the ecosystem and agriculture—and mistakes have already been made. Critics accuse Monsanto and other big biotech companies of trying to contaminate the entire world’s seed stock, thereby rendering the debate over GMOs moot. With stakes so high, Winters says, “This case could undermine the entire legitimacy of the WTO.”
posted on May 28, 2003 07:08:41 AM newCritics accuse Monsanto and other big biotech companies of trying to contaminate the entire world’s seed stock, thereby rendering the debate over GMOs moot.
At first you think "oh that's just crazy", but any gardener who has grown two types of corn too close together knows just how easily they can cross. It doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine major corn crops worldwide being polluted by Monsanto's strain in only a few growing seasons. Then farmers who don't even WANT to grow GM corn will be beholden to Monsanto for license fees. It points out the danger of allowing patents on plant genetics. Like I said, whether the food is safe to eat or not is only one issue.
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
