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 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 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 "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 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." Groups plan to sue feds over bat diseaseSALMON, 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 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 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 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 Closures - including proposals now under consideration on
public forest lands in 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. 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 Tomato is
|
|||||||||