EU: Commission at odds with Parliament over GM crop authorisations – by Natasha Foote

The EU executive looks set to press ahead with a “new approach” to genetically modified (GM) crop authorisations in the wake of persistent lack of political support for the technology in the European Parliament.

In December, MEPs voted for a further five objections against authorisations of GM crops for use as food and feed in the EU, including one GM soybean and four GM maize varieties. This has brought the overall number of objections to GM crop authorisations to 51 in five years.

Read more at: Commission at odds with Parliament over GM crop authorisations – EURACTIV.com

Chemical Giants: The World vs. Monsanto: A Short History of the Battle Against the Most Evil Corporation on the Planet - by Jason Louv

Starting in 2013, the Monsanto Company made a major play to not only consolidate its control over the agribusiness industry, but to seize permanent control of the entire world’s food supply. Ultraculture, and the entire world, fought back. Here’s a history of the Great Monsanto War of 2013-15.

From 2013 to 2015, Ultraculture helped lead the charge against the Monsanto Company, and worked to guide and encourage the global effort to get chemicals and genetic tampering out of our food supply.

Monsanto has relentlessly and ruthlessly lobbied for the ability to re-engineer our food for profit, without consumers knowing what it’s doing—particularly in the United States.

Thanks to a network of lobbyists passed through the “revolving door” between public office and private corporate appointments, Monsanto has been able to operate largely without the American public having any awareness of its actions.

But nothing can stay hidden for long. Our reporting on Monsanto rocketed to the top of Reddit, breaking the story of the “Monsanto Protection Act,” helping to initiate the global furor that prompted the two-million-strong “March Against Monsanto” and forcing the company into backpedal mode as its stock took a hit.

All of this reporting (which we followed up with by breaking the story of the TPP at Vice News) resulted in a book, Monsanto vs. the World, which took a critical and investigative look at the company and has since become a lasting success, achieving ongoing sales, becoming a go-to text of the anti-GMO movement and being placed on the syllabus of multiple college courses.

Now it’s time to round up all of our Monsanto reporting into one cornerstone post, which collects the best of our reporting to archive the history of the Great Monsanto War for posterity. The fight against Monsanto—and genetic (specifically transgenic) tampering with food—goes on, and it’s important to have the information summarized for easy access.

To read the complete report click here: The World vs. Monsanto: A Short History of the Battle Against the Most Evil Corporation on the Planet

GMO Agenda Takes An Alarming Step Forward. US EPA Just Quietly Approved Monsanto/Dow’s RNAi Corn – by A.Erickson

Varying opinions on the rise and prominence of GMOs has led to a lot of controversy. Many people, regardless of their stance, still feel entitled to know what they’re consuming, and if it’s the product of laboratory research.

vSnf7 dsRNA is an insecticide, but unlike others, it’s not sprayed on crops. To use it, you encode instructions for manufacturing it in the DNA of the crop itself. So, for instance, if a Western corn rootworm begins destroying your crop, the plant’s self-made DvSnf7 dsRNA interferes with a critical rootworm gene and kills the pesky bugger.

This disruption is referred to as RNA interference, or RNAi. Haven’t heard of it? That’s because it was just approved. Didn’t hear that news? That’s because mainstream media remained silent, allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to recently approve the first insecticide relying on it.

The first DvSnf7 dsRNA product will come in the form of SmartStax Pro, a line of genetically modified corn seeds created by Monsanto and Dow. The RNAi part comes from Monsanto. The agricultural giant anticipates corn seed with RNAi coming to the market by the end of this decade.

The Western corn rootworm has proved quite resilient, with corn farmers continuously investing in new ways to stop it from damaging their cornfields. When spray-on pesticides failed, farmers took advantage of corn genetically modified to make the Bt toxin, a technology also from Monsanto, which also didn’t work as hoped for. Now, the farmers are eagerly awaiting the arrival of SmartStax Pro, which will have both Bt as well as DvSnf7 dsRNA.

Read more: The GMO Agenda Takes An Alarming Step Forward. The EPA Just Quietly Approved Monsanto/Dow’s RNAi Corn – Collective Evolution

Pesticides and GMO's: What Grocery Stores Don’t Tell You about the Stickers on Produce

You know those stickers that can be found on most fruits and veggies in grocery stores worldwide? If you’ve ever bought produce from a grocery chain, you’ll recognize the ones we’re talking about. I’m sure for some of us who used to or currently work in a grocery store, those stickers are burned into our minds .

They usually have a a bar code on them for scanning and a PLU code, which helps your friendly neighborhood cashier identify what type of produce you’re buying.

But these unassuming stickers are more telling than you’d think. While the PLU is the “price lookup” number and identifies the fruit or veggie, it also helps to identify something else: how the produce was grown. By correctly reading this code, you can tell if the fruit was genetically modified, organically grown or produced with chemical fertilizers, fungicides, or herbicides

The story behind where your fruits and vegetables actually came from has been right under your nose all along! You just have to know how to analyze the labels and the PLU number. It’s actually a lot easier than you’d imagine

Here’s the basics of what you need to know about the truth behind PLU codes.

    1) If there are only four numbers in the PLU, this means that the produce was grown conventionally or “traditionally” with the use of pesticides. The last four letters (or only four, in this case) of the PLU code are simply what kind of vegetable or fruit you’re buying. An example is that all bananas are labeled with the code of 4011.
   
    2) If there are five numbers in the PLU code, and the number starts with “8”, this tells you that the item is a genetically modified fruit or vegetable. Genetically modified fruits and vegetables have been tampered with in an unnatural way; essentially, produce that has been genetically modified was created in a lab or over decades of artificial selection, and cannot be found in nature. A genetically engineered (GE or GMO) banana would be: 84011
   
    3) If there are five numbers in the PLU code, and the number starts with “9”, this tells you that the produce was grown organically and is not genetically modified. An organic banana would be: 94011
   
    Interestingly enough, the adhesive used to attach the stickers is considered food-grade, but the stickers themselves aren’t safe to consume.

If you’re looking to be hyper aware of what fruits and vegetables have been treated with pesticides and other chemicals and which have not, you’ll want to check out the homepage for the Environmental Working Groups. The EWG has compiled two lists to help consumers identify which produce is generally cleaner and which produce is generally tampered with; the Clean Fifteen and the Dirty Dozen.

The Top 5 for the “Clean Fifteen” produce are:

    1)Avocados
    2)Sweet Corn
    3)Pineapple
    4)Cabbage
    5)Sweet Peas (Frozen)

The Top 5 for the “Dirty Dozen” produce are:

    1)Strawberries
    2)Apples
    3)Nectarines
    4)Peaches
    5)Celery

For the full lists, food news, and additional food rankings, make sure to check out the EWG online.

Read more: What Grocery Stores Don’t Tell You about the Stickers on Produce | TipHero

GMO Propaganda: Genetically Modified Crops Are Safe, US Report Says - by Maggie Fox

Genetically modified crops on the market are not only safe, but appear to be good for people and the environment, experts determined in a report released Tuesday.

But the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are not just asking people to take their word for it. They're putting the evidence up on a website so skeptics — and they know there are plenty of them — can check for themselves.

"You can't just continue to have an opinion without backing it up with data," said Fred Gould, distinguished professor of entomology and co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University.

"Part of our approach here was to make this not just a report," added Gould, who chaired the expert committee that released the report. "This is all on a website. We hope that this report will open a conversation, not make some kind of a proclamation."

"They really want somebody to say this is good or this is bad, we came to the conclusion that making any sweeping generalizations about genetically engineered crops is not appropriate," Gould told NBC News.

Perhaps surprisingly, given the huge debate over GMOs, only two types of genetically engineered crops are in wide use - one engineered to carry genes from a common bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt for short) that kills insects that eat it, and one that makes crops resistant to weedkillers.

But more than 90 percent of corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the U.S. is genetically modified. 

Note EU-Digest: funding  for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine also includes a variety of donors from the Private Sector, including chemical companies involved in GMO development and the sale of GMO treated products.

Read mpre: Genetically Modified Crops Are Safe, Report Says - NBC News

TTIP: Rome protesters march against planned EU-US free trade deal

Protesters took to the streets of Rome on Saturday to say ‘No’ to TTIP, the sweeping free trade deal being negotiated between the European Union and the United States.

Critics claim it will lower food safety and environmental standards. In Europe, there is widespread opposition to allowing more imports of US agricultural products due to concerns about genetically modified foods.

Read more: TTIP: Rome protesters march against planned EU-US free trade deal | euronews, world news

US Food Safety: A Remarkable Triumph of Democracy Over Corporate Power, GMO Labeling Has Finally Arrived in the U.S. -- by Andrew Kimbre

GMO' Labeling: Corporate Hypocrisy On Steroids

For the last 15 years, numerous organizations and legislators have been battling to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods. During that time 64 other countries have mandated this labeling, but not the U.S. Many of us in the food movement have said that it was not a matter of if we would join with these countries and have GE labeling, but when. Well, it looks like when may have finally arrived.

Over the course of just a few days, several major companies have announced they will label GE products, including Kellogg’s, ConAgra, Mars and General Mills. Earlier this year, Campbell’s announced it would label. What caused this wave of GE labeling? It certainly hasn’t been a sudden realization that more than 90 percent of Americans want labeling, which polls have shown for many years. And these companies have never been pro-labeling. Just the opposite. Each has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund massive PR campaigns opposing various state GE labeling initiatives.

This sudden turnaround was actually triggered by a remarkable triumph of democracy over corporate power that took place last week in the U.S. Senate. That vote involved an attempt to pass what many call The Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act. This bill introduced by Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) was specifically designed to rescind all state laws requiring labeling of GE foods. Of special concern was Vermont’s labeling law, which is scheduled to go into effect July 1, 2016.

Feeling the pressure of the Vermont deadline, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto and other large chemical and industrial ag companies put enormous pressure on the Senate to pass the DARK Act. Against this array of powerful companies were tens of millions of Americans involved in the food movement.

Most mainstream media outlets predicted an easy victory for corporate power. But the companies soon realized they were in a serious battle. Their primary argument that labeling was going to raise the cost of food got shot down when the study they relied on turned out to be bogus, and food companies such as Campbell’s said the costs would be minimal. Their other argument was that without the DARK Act they would be confronted with a “patchwork” of different GE labeling laws. That argument also failed when it was demonstrated that Vermont’s requirements were the same as those in Connecticut and Maine, the only other states having voted for labeling.

Then they introduced a supposed “compromise” version of the DARK Act that would allow them to voluntarily indicate whether a product contained GE ingredients via QR codes, websites and call-in numbers. This proposal quickly ran into trouble when research showed millions of Americans could not even read QR codes. Half of low income and rural Americans do not own smart phones, nor do two-thirds of the elderly. This grossly discriminatory scheme would also force shoppers to triple or quadruple their shopping time to find out about GE ingredients. They would have to call in to inquire about a product, or take a picture of each product with their phones and upload them, assuming they were able to get on line.

The DARK Act was an obvious attempt to hide non-labeling under the guise of labeling. Senator Barbara Boxer correctly called the bill a “sham and an embarrassment.” Then it came down to the vote. By Senate rules, Monsanto and the big food companies needed 60 votes in the Senate to get the DARK Act to a final vote. Despite predictions, they didn’t even come close: the final vote was 49-48 against the bill. Democracy defeated corporate power. The right to know of Americans won. At that point several major food corporations saw that they were not going to be able to bully the Senate into erasing the Vermont law or those of other states. Within hours the dominoes began to fall as one corporation after the other announced they would comply with the Vermont labeling mandate.

Is the battle over? Hardly. Chemical companies, including Monsanto, and some major food companies will no doubt fight on, and try to find some other way to convince the Senate to circumvent Vermont and other state labeling requirements. It will be a hard sell. Will the Republicans in the Senate really allow a second vote on GE food labeling when they won’t even allow one vote on a Supreme Court nominee? Will they continue to listen to Monsanto when the company has already announced its plans to attempt to merge with a foreign company to avoid paying taxes in the U.S.? Whatever the corporate powers decide they can be sure of one thing: they will once again come up against a strong food movement. We must remain vigilant in defending our right to know. 

Read more: In a Remarkable Triumph of Democracy Over Corporate Power, GMO Labeling Has Finally Arrived in the U.S. | Alternet

GMO: Hungarians Just Destroyed All Monsanto cancer risk causing GMO Corn Fields

Hungary has taken a bold stand against biotech giant Monsanto and genetic modification by destroying 1000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds, according to Hungary deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar.

Unlike many European Union countries, Hungary is a nation where genetically modified (GM) seeds are banned. In a similar stance against GM ingredients, Peru has also passed a 10 year ban on GM foods.

“Almost 1000 acres of maize found to have been ground with genetically modified seeds have been destroyed throughout Hungary, deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar said.

The GMO maize has been ploughed under, said Lajos Bognar, but pollen has not spread from the maize, he added.

Unlike several EU members, GMO seeds are banned in Hungary. The checks will continue despite the fact that seek traders are obliged to make sure that their products are GMO free, Bognar said.

Read more: Hungarians Just Destroyed All Monsanto GMO Corn Fields | UPRISER

US Congress - GMO Labeling: The Monsanto Protection Act is back -- worse than before - impact on EU TTIP negotiations

The biggest threat to GMO labeling that we ever saw could soon become law if people don’t react now.

US Republican Congressman Mike Pompeo, Monsanto’s hand-picked representative in Washington, has combined his anti-GMO labeling bill, the “DARK Act,” with the Monsanto Protection Act – and it’s even worse than before.

This newly revised Monsanto Protection Act would not only prevent states from enacting their own GMO labeling laws, but it would go even further by nullifying all existing restrictions on GMO crops already on the books.

This unbelievable power grab by Monsanto and its Republican supporters is quickly making its way through Congressional committees and could be up for a final vote by the end of the month.

According to the Environmental Working Group, a leading advocate for GMO labeling and major opponent of Rep. Pompeo’s legislation, the new Monsanto Protection Act would:

• Block all state laws requiring mandatory GMO labeling, including Vermont’s landmark labeling law;
• Prevent the FDA from establishing a national mandatory GMO labeling program;
• Possibly block non-GMO claims until the USDA creates a non-GMO certification program, which could take up to 10 years;
• Block all state and local efforts to protect rural communities and farmers from the impacts of GMO crops;
• Prevent claims by food companies that non-GMO foods are better than GMO ones.

The consequences of this legislation for the US food system would be drastic and widespread.

US State-level efforts to label GMO foods that have already passed in states like Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut would be nullified. All local oversight and restrictions on genetically modified crops would be prohibited. Laws and regulations in states and communities with GMO-free agricultural zones, including in California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii, could be completely overturned.

Monsanto has significantly beefed up its lobbying efforts to pass this bill, spending nearly a half million dollars per month in total lobbying and boasting that it has contacted every single member of Congress.

Recent polling shows that even though more than 90% of Americans are in favor of GMO labeling, corporate money  is being used to influence Congressional legislators to vote against preventive health measures and consumer choices provided by food labeling.

The EU negotiating team at the EU-US Trade Negotiations (TTIP) are hopefully also aware of the going's on in the US Congress in relation to GMO's and food labeling. 

New EU food labeling rules came into force in the EU on December 13, 2014 to ensure that consumers receive clearer and more accurate information about what they buy and eat.

The new EU  rules will now even  force restaurants and cafés to list 14 different allergens in the menus - including nuts, gluten, lactose, soy or milk.Displaying allergens was until then only mandatory for pre-packed foods.

Nano components will also have to be included in the ingredients list. Oils will need to refer to the plants used in their production, such as sunflower, palm or olive.

Fresh meat from pigs, sheep, goats and poultry will need to carry a mandatory origin label, with a font size of at least 1.2 milimetres.   

As one EU parliamentarian noted: "we must keep that unlabeled American Junk-Food out off the European food supplies". 

EU-Digest