http://www.aglinenews.com

" I heard it
through the
AgLine"

 

May 27, 2011

 

 

·        OMG! There’s GM stuff in my granola

·        Groups plan to sue feds over bat disease

·        Monsanto unfazed by court’s beet ruling

·        Tomato is UK’s most Googled fruit

·        Inside Oregon’s largest legal pot farm

 

 

OMG! There’s GM stuff in my granola

 

(Chicago Tribune) – When a team of activists wearing white hazmat suits showed up at a Chicago grocery store to protest the sale of genetically modified foods, they picked an unlikely target: Whole Foods Market.

 

Organic foods, by definition, can't knowingly contain genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs. But genetically modified corn, soy and other crops have become such common ingredients in processed foods that even one of the nation's top organic food retailers says it hasn't been able to avoid stocking some products that contain them.

 

"No one would guess that there are genetically engineered foods right here in Whole Foods," said Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association, which organized the protest. The activists dramatically trashed a battery of well-known health food brands outside the store, including Tofutti, Kashi and Boca Burgers.

 

Though people have been modifying foodstuffs through selective breeding and other methods for centuries, genetically modified crops differ in that the plants grow from seeds in which DNA splicing has been used to place genes from another source into a plant. In this way, the crop can be made to withstand a weed-killing pesticide, for example, or incorporate a bacterial toxin that can repel pests.

 

Some consumers are concerned that such changes may pose health risks and say manufacturers should be required to prove GMOs are safe for human consumption before putting them on the market. They also say products containing genetically modified ingredients should be identified for the consumer; the U.S. is one of the few industrialized nations that does not require such labeling or testing.

 

Industry representatives say that GMOs are safe and that labeling them is unnecessary, citing a 1992 statement from the FDA saying the agency had no reason to believe GMOs "differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way." No mainstream regulatory organization in the U.S. has opposed the introduction of GMOs.

 

"FDA has the scientific and nutrition expertise to establish food labeling and to assess food safety," said Ab Basu, the Biotechnology Industry Organization's acting executive vice president for food and agriculture. "You can look at the FDA website and see that if the corn is substantially equivalent to corn produced conventionally, there is no reason to label it as being any different."

 

Critics of the technology say they are concerned not only about possible health risks but also about soil and plant nutrient losses, contamination of non-GMO crops and increased pesticide use.

 

With an unprecedented number of genetically modified crops being greenlighted by the Obama administration in recent months amid public debate — including ethanol corn, alfalfa and sugar beets under certain conditions — some advocates say the issues may be reaching the awareness of consumers beyond the health-conscious shoppers who frequent Whole Foods.

 

They cite polls taken by the Pew Center, Consumers Union and Harris Interactive over the last decade that have consistently found the vast majority of Americans would like to see genetically modified foods better regulated and labeled.

 

"If companies say genetic engineering is fine, then OK let's label it and let the consumers make their own decisions," said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union, which produces Consumer Reports. "That's what all the free market supporters say. So let's let the market work properly."

 

Michael Jacobsen, executive director for Center for Science in the Public Interest, which does not oppose GMOs, says many manufacturers see labeling as too risky. "No food company would use GMOs if they had to label them because there is no benefit to the companies," he said. "The term GMO has become a toxic term, and so if a company figures they will lose maybe 2 percent of their sales why should they? It's all loss for them."

 

In fact, a 2006 study for the Pew Initiative for Food and Biotechnology found that only 23 percent of women (the primary shopping decision makers) thought genetically modified foods were safe.

 

But knowledge on this topic also remains low. The same Pew study found that only 26 percent of American consumers believed they'd ever eaten genetically modified food, while a 2010 survey by the International Food Information Council reported that only 28 percent of respondents knew such foods were sold in stores.

 

Currently 14 states have introduced legislation on GMO labeling but most of it has not moved out of committee, including an Illinois bill introduced in February by Rep. Deborah Mell, D-Chicago. She says she plans to reintroduce it next session. Only Alaska, with its huge wild salmon industry, has passed a biotech seafood labeling law.

 

On the issue of safety, both sides of the debate come armed with research. This year Spanish researchers published an overview of GMO food safety studies in Environment International, finding that peer-reviewed studies had found health risks and no health risks in roughly equal numbers. The paper notes, however, that many studies finding no risks were sponsored by the biotech industry or associates.

 

Canadian researchers this year reported that the blood of 93 percent of pregnant women and 80 percent of their umbilical cord blood samples contained a pesticide implanted in GMO corn by the biotech company Monsanto, though digestion is supposed to remove it from the body. "Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed," they wrote in Reproductive Toxicology.

 

As the biggest producer of GMO seeds and the compatible pesticide Roundup, Missouri-based Monsanto is at the heart of the GMO debate. Monsanto would not make a representative available for an interview but did offer a statement on the lack of long-term animal or human safety studies on genetically modified crops.

 

"Experts in the field of food safety are satisfied that (the current) approach is sufficient and reliable to assure the genetically modified crops are as safe as their conventional counterparts," the statement said. "This expert community does not see a need and thus does not recommend long-term tests in humans or animals in order to establish food safety."

 

Return to Top

 

 

Groups plan to sue feds over bat disease

 

SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) – Conservation and organic farming groups alarmed by the spread of a disease decimating bats on Wednesday threatened to sue the U.S. government within 30 days unless it immediately closes caves and abandoned mines on public lands.

 

White-nose syndrome, named for the telltale fungus that appears on the muzzles of bats, has killed more than a million bats in the eastern United States since its discovery in upstate New York in 2006, according to government research.

 

The fungus has been detected in 19 states across the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions. Scientists say it is only a matter of time before it spreads westward to infect bats that hibernate in caves and abandoned mines.

 

"We're facing a number of bat species probably going extinct within a few decades if things don't change," said Mollie Matteson, advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, the lead group behind the threatened lawsuit.

 

The fungus is mostly transmitted from bat to bat. But government biologists say it also can be transferred by caving enthusiasts and others whose underground explorations may bring them into contact with infected bats or with the spores left behind after white-nose syndrome killed off a colony.

 

Government land managers have already closed caves and abandoned mines in most states east of the Mississippi.

 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended cutting off access to caves in states where the fungus has been detected as well as adjacent states. But it has stopped short of advising nationwide closures.

 

The groups contend piecemeal closures are inadequate to address what the government itself has described as an unprecedented wildlife disease that is expected to infect colonies in the West and Pacific Northwest.

 

Organic farming groups behind the proposed action say the syndrome could devastate their industry along with the bats.

 

The pest-control benefits of insect-eating bats are estimated to save agriculture in the United States from $3.7 billion to $53 billion a year, according to a recent study by Boston University and other scientists.

 

Closures - including proposals now under consideration on public forest lands in Montana and northern Idaho - have been hotly contested by cavers, with 10,000 members and 250 caving clubs organized under the National Speleological Society.

 

Mike McEachern, head of the Northern Rocky Mountain Grotto, a caving club, said those organizations are committed to preserving caves and the bats that inhabit them. But he predicted a debate over closing caves would be contentious.

 

"Most of the caves in the West are on federal property and asking to close all caves is like asking the government to close the ocean," McEachern said.

 

Ann Froschauer, national white-nose syndrome spokeswoman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the government is scrambling to gather the science that may help combat the killer bat disease.

 

"We're looking at potentially losing over half of our bat species; we're trying not to create a new potential epicenter out West," she said.

 

Return to Top

 

 

Monsanto unfazed by court’s beet ruling

 

(foodnavigator.com) – A US court of appeals has said that Monsanto must produce further studies examining the environmental impact of its genetically modified (GM) sugar beets before they can be planted on a commercial scale.

 

The dismissal of Monsanto’s appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been welcomed by plaintiffs in the suit, who have hailed it as a benchmark case meaning the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) will have to prepare a thorough review of its sugar beets, which have been engineered for resistance to Monsanto’s Roundup-brand insecticide, before they can re-enter commercial production. The USDA has said it expects to complete an Environmental Impact Statement by mid-2012.

 

Center for Food Safety (CFS) attorney George Kimbrell said in a statement that the order, passed on Friday, “cements a critical legal benchmark in the battle for meaningful oversight of biotech crops and food.”

 

He said: “Because of this case, there will be public disclosure and debate on the harmful impacts of these pesticide-promoting crops, as well as legal protections for farmers threatened by contamination.”

 

However, Monsanto said in an emailed statement that the dismissal would have little effect.

 

It said: “As a result of subsequent court decisions and USDA actions, continuation of the appeals had little consequence for Roundup Ready sugarbeet growers or seed companies. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has issued interim measures to allow the planting of Roundup Ready sugarbeets and farmers are planting their Roundup Ready sugarbeet crops.”

 

In August last year, US District Court Judge Jeffrey White ruled in favor of the coalition of environmental groups led by Earthjustice and the Center for Food Safety – which are also the plaintiffs in this latest case – to block the further cultivation of GM sugar beets while an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared. The plaintiffs had expressed concern that GM beet pollen could contaminate non-GM and organic crops because sugar beets are wind pollinated.

 

During this case’s appeal the USDA allowed planting of GM sugar beets to continue on a partially regulated basis for the 2011-2012 season. That issue is the subject of separate litigation.

 

GM sugar beets account for 95 percent of those being grown in the US, according to USDA figures, with beet sugar providing about half of the total US sugar supply.

 

Return to Top

 

 

Tomato is UK’s most Googled fruit

 

(Belfast Telegraph) – The tomato is the UK's most Googled fruit, according to new research.

 

People are twice as likely to Google tomatoes as apples, which is the second most common searched-for fruit.

 

The review, by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), found Google lists 53.6 million web pages mentioning tomatoes. Bananas and peaches are in joint third place on the Google search, followed by oranges.

 

As well as the UK, tomatoes also come out top in the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Apples rank second in all of these counties except New Zealand, where peaches are the second most favourite fruit.

 

The research was carried out to mark Fruity Friday, which aims to encourage people to eat more fruit and vegetables.

 

Teresa Nightingale, general manager for the WCRF, said: "I have always thought of apples, oranges and bananas as the most popular fruits, so I was surprised to see them all beaten by the tomato, especially as many people actually think of tomatoes as a vegetable.

 

"But although we tend to cook tomatoes in our evening meals or in savoury dishes, this doesn't change the fact that the tomato is a fruit.

 

"We are not sure whether people are looking for information about growing tomatoes or finding out about their nutritional content, but they are the winner by some distance.

 

"It is also clear that a wide range of fruits are being Googled, which supports our Fruity Friday message that as well as eating plenty of fruits and vegetables, you should also try to get as wide a variety as possible.

 

"As well as being good for health generally, eating plenty of fruits and vegetables probably reduces risk of cancer

 

Return to Top

 

 

Inside Oregon’s largest legal pot farm

 

JACKSONVILLE, Ore. (AP) — The burnt end of a joint between his fingers and a white plastic lighter in his fist, James Bowman watched the half dozen young men, shirts off in the warm spring sun, shovels working to the beat of loud rock music, as they prepared the soil for the biggest medical marijuana plantation in Oregon.

 

It is springtime on The Farm, a cooperative in the heart of Applegate Valley wine country that will grow some 200 plants to supply about 70 card-carrying medical marijuana users.

 

Here, surrounded by wineries, bed and breakfasts, churches and a school, the legal side of marijuana operates in plain sight, visible to hang gliders soaring overhead, drivers on nearby roads, and viewers of Google Maps. >>> Photo Gallery

 

Over the winter volunteers have trimmed the dried buds from last year's crop, cut slips from mother plants, and rooted them in little plastic bags of potting soil now stacked against the side of a greenhouse. In June, they will plant the clones in circles of loam fed by plastic drip lines. Through summer, volunteers will wrap the heavy branches with duct tape to keep them from breaking. And under a harvest moon in October they will patrol the grounds with Tasers and pepper spray until it is time to bring in the bud.

 

It is all perfectly legal under state law as long as Bowman, his partners and volunteers don't get greedy or careless.

 

Because waiting are drug cops like Grants Pass Police Sgt. Ray Myers, part of the Rogue Area Drug Enforcement taskforce.

 

"The fact is that they can grow marijuana right under our nose,"' said Myers. "Until we catch them doing something illegal with it, there is nothing we can do about it."

 

If the state medical marijuana database shows a growth site as registered, the law doesn't allow police to even inspect crops without an invitation or probable cause of a crime. They can't troll through the list of legal sites, either. Still, police regularly bust medical marijuana growers, often after traffic stops when the officer smells marijuana. If there's a load in the trunk, the grower must be able to prove it belongs to those with medical marijuana cards.

 

Sometimes police end up helping the growers, once foiling a plot to rip off The Farm.

 

The neighbors don't seem too concerned.

 

"Unless someone is mad at you, there is a live and let live philosophy here," said Tony Largaespada, who runs the tasting room at a nearby vineyard.

 

Bowman, 51, learned his craft as an outlaw grower, part of the subculture that has thrived in the Emerald Triangle of southwestern Oregon and northwestern California for 40 years, since hippies and survivalists came here to make their living outside the mainstream. He is frustrated that police and even some in the medical marijuana movement look at the growers as bad guys.

 

"They like pot now, but still don't like potheads,"' he said. "They are trying to ease out the people who kept this plant alive and vital. We're the ones who went to jail, lost our properties, lost our kids. We're the ones who sacrificed. If anyone is going to prosper from this it should be the people who paid the biggest price."

 

Bowman started smoking pot as a teenager in Iowa, where he first tried to grow his own. In the 1980s he moved first to Humboldt County in California, and then up to the Illinois Valley in southwestern Oregon's Josephine County. The region was settled during the Gold Rush, but now struggles with the timber industry in decline.

 

It has Oregon's densest population of medical marijuana patients and growers. State figures show 3.5 percent of residents held patient cards last year, and 2.2 percent held grower cards. Neighboring Jackson County, where Bowman resides, and legally smokes pot for chronic pain, migraines, and depression.

 

Busted for growing marijuana in the Illinois Valley, Bowman did three years in federal prison in the early 1990s. In 1998, Oregon voters authorized medical marijuana. Since 2002 Bowman has been growing it here, on 5 acres owned by his girlfriend, with the number of patients getting a little bigger every year. He and his partners hope to buy this land, and cash in like he never could as an outlaw.

 

But because the law prohibits growers from being paid for more than electricity and materials, like fertilizer, they have to depend on donations from benefactors Bowman will not name.

 

"Even though we work, we're basically like the guys sitting on the side of the road, saying, 'Hey, I need some money,'" he said. "What we want to do is be able to pay taxes like everyone else. But we can't, because of the sale language."

 

The main crop comes from 30 proven strains with names like Arcata Trainwreck, each one preferred by some patient for treating a particular ailment. The mother plants are kept in a second-floor greenhouse with sheet plastic sides. The clones are rooted in sheds below, then get moved out to greenhouses. Bowman is always looking for something new, cross-pollinating and testing the results. Those starts are in another greenhouse, along with sprouting melon seeds, part of the diversification effort to produce organic vegetables.

 

Bowman gets help from 30 volunteers.

 

Ben Smith, 29, of Ashland works half the year building schools in Central America, but when he is home, takes care of his dad, a medical marijuana patient.

 

"Before I got clones from here, I couldn't grow anything,"' he said.

 

Patrick LeRoy, 49, of Grants Pass, was a carpenter, but can't work since breaking his back and neck. Hunched in a chair under a fluorescent light, he trims buds — "I do it for my donation" — which he smokes for chronic pain.

 

"It's like a family farm,"' Bowman said.

 

Return to Top

 

End Transmission