Genetically Modified Foods: By ‘Editing’ Plant Genes, Companies Avoid Regulation - by Andrew Pollack

Its first attempt to develop genetically engineered grass ended disastrously for the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company. The grass escaped into the wild from test plots in Oregon in 2003, dooming the chances that the government would approve the product for commercial use.

Yet Scotts is once again developing genetically modified grass that would need less mowing, be a deeper green and be resistant to damage from the popular weedkiller Roundup. But this time the grass will not need federal approval before it can be field-tested and marketed.

Scotts and several other companies are developing genetically modified crops using techniques that either are outside the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Department or use new methods — like “genome editing” — that were not envisioned when the regulations were created.

The department has said, for example, that it has no authority over a new herbicide-resistant canola, a corn that would create less pollution from livestock waste, switch grass tailored for biofuel production, and even an ornamental plant that glows in the dark.

The trend alarms critics of biotech crops, who say genetic modification can have unintended effects, regardless of the process.

“They are using a technical loophole so that what are clearly genetically engineered crops and organisms are escaping regulation,” said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union. He said the grass “can have all sorts of ecological impact and no one is required to look at it.”

Even some people who say the crops are safe and the regulations overly burdensome have expressed concern that because some crops can be left unregulated, the whole oversight process is confusing and illogical, in some cases doing more harm than good.

In November’s Nature Biotechnology, plant researchers at the University of California, Davis, wrote that the regulatory framework had become “obsolete and an obstacle to the development of new agricultural products.”

But companies using the new techniques say that if the methods were not labeled genetic engineering, novel crops could be marketed or grown in Europe and other countries that do not readily accept genetically modified crops.

Freedom from oversight could also open opportunities for smaller companies and university breeders and for the modification of less common crops. Until now, in part because of the costs associated with regulation, crop biotechnology has been dominated by Monsanto and a handful of other big companies working mainly on widely grown crops like corn and soybeans.

Jennifer Kuzma, co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, said that there would soon be a flood of crops seeking regulatory exemptions and that there needed to be a public discourse about what should be regulated, in part to allay possible consumer anxiety.

“It’s not that I think these are risky,” she said of the crops escaping regulation. “But the very fact that this is the route we are taking without any discussion is troubling.”

 Read more: By ‘Editing’ Plant Genes, Companies Avoid Regulation - NYTimes.com

France: Hollande vows to uphold ban on Monsanto GM

French President François Hollande said Friday the country will maintain its current ban on growing genetically modified (GM) corn sold by US agriculture industry giant Monsanto, despite a court’s decision to lift the moratorium.

“The moratorium will be prolonged,” Hollande said during a visit to a farm in the southwestern region of Dordogne, adding the ruling would have to be reviewed at the national and European level.

“Why did we impose a moratorium on GM? Not because we are against progress, but for the sake of progress,” the president said. “We cannot allow one crop –corn– to have a negative effect on other crops.”

A ban on MON810 corn – one of two kinds of GM food crops whose cultivation is approved by the European Union – has been in place in France since February 2008 and extended in 2012.

Note EU-Digest: Good decision by President Hollande. GM foods must not find their way into the European food chain.

Read more: Hollande vows to uphold ban on Monsanto GM corn - FRANCE - FRANCE 24

Genetically Modified Organisms: Monsanto withdraws bids to grow GMO crops in Europe - by Ricardo Lopez

Monsanto Co. said Thursday it will largely drop its bid to grow some of its genetically modified crops in Europe.

The world's largest seed-maker has nine pending applications with the European Commission, the executive body for the European Union. A spokesman said the company plans to withdraw eight of those applications.
The requests "have been going nowhere fast for several years," said Brandon Mitchener, a spokesman for the St. Louis-based company's European entity. "There’s no end in sight ... due to political obstructionism."

Many European countries, including France, Germany and Italy, have bans in place against genetically-modified organisms. Public sentiment has been divided and intense over safety and environmental concerns related to cultivated crops that have been genetically engineered. Scientists have largely said these types of crops are "safe". But also many scientists do not agree.

The issue has long simmered in Europe. In 2007, seed-maker Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. of Johnston, Iowa, sued the European Commission, criticizing the body for failing to act quickly on approval requests to cultivate the company's crops.

A spokesperson for the European Commission declined by email to comment on Monsanto's move, but said the pending applications had been greenlighted by the commission's Food Safety Agency.

Note EU-Digest: one can only hope that European Parliamentarians won't get swayed by US Chemical Industry lobbyists who are spending millions of euro's on convincing EU politicians to buy their chemically altered, polluted and dangerous foods and seeds.  Lets us also not forget the Monsanto Bhopal disaster in India.  

The globalization of agriculture in general has dramatically increased poverty in many developing countries, as crop subsidies in other nations began to affect agriculture, driving down crop profits. 

Third world farmers have lost billions of dollars over the years from having to compete in the global agricultural marketplace rather than grow their own biodiverse crops to feed their own people. Global corporations have literally robbed many developing countries of its self-reliance and self-sustenance in the name of "ending poverty" by thrusting upon them a system of monopolized and genetically modified organisms in agriculture. This marketplace is now mainly controlled and operated by multi-national corporations like Monsanto. 

Read more: Monsanto withdraws bids to grow GMO crops in Europe - latimes.com

Genetically Modified Foods - USA: Monsanto hit with class action lawsuits in mystery GMO wheat case

American Farmers have launched two class action lawsuits against biotech giant Monsanto following the discovery of unapproved genetically modified wheat growing in the Pacific Northwest. According to farmers, the company’s negligence has ruined sales.

Though the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has never approved either the growing or sale of GMO wheat in the US, the agency began investigating its existence when an Oregon farmer found wheat growing in his fields that was resistant to Monsanto’s patented Roundup pesticide, known by its scientific classification as glyphosate.

That farmer sent samples of the Roundup-resistant wheat to Oregon State University, which conducted tests on them. OSU then contacted the USDA, which subsequently confirmed that the wheat was a GMO variety that Monsanto had been authorized to field test in 16 US states, including Oregon, from 1998 to 2005.
Surprisingly, the GMO wheat discovered in Oregon had somehow been growing over a decade after test crops should have been destroyed in 2001.

Though the scientific merits of the growing and consumption of GMO crops are still a source of contention, genetically modified wheat is a commercial liability for US farmers, who exported $8.1 billion worth of wheat in 2012 – nearly half of the total $17.9 billion US wheat crop.

Following the USDA’s confirmation that GMO wheat was present, Japan immediately canceled a 25,000-ton import of soft white wheat, and both South Korea and Europe announced more stringent testing of American wheat shipments for possible contamination.

Read more: Monsanto hit with class action lawsuits in mystery GMO wheat case | REALfarmacy.com | Healthy News and Information

Genetically Modified Foods: 7 Foods Banned in Europe Still Available in the U.S.

Although the E.U. is continuously coming under attack for policies banning GM foods, the community is highly suspicious of genetically modified foods, and the agro-industrial pressures that drive their use. The problem with GM foods is that there is simply not sufficient research and understanding to inform good public policy. In spite of widespread GM use without apparent negative impacts in other countries, the recent public reaction to trans-fats are reason enough to support a precautionary principle for the food supply chain.

The E.U. has acted against the worst pesticides typically found as residuals in the food chain. A ban on 22 pesticides was passed at the E.U. level, and is pending approval by the Member States. Critics claim the ban with raise prices and may harm malaria control, but advocates of the ban say action must be taken against the pesticides which are known to cause harm to health and nevertheless consistently found in studies of food consumption.

This drug, known as rBGH for short, is not allowed in Europe. In contrast, U.S. citizens struggle even for laws that allow hormone-free labelling so that consumers have a choice. This should be an easy black-and-white decision for all regulators and any corporation that is really concerned about sustainability: give consumers the information. We deserve control over our food choice.

Read more: 7 Foods Banned in Europe Still Available in the U.S. : TreeHugger

Food Labeling:The European Union specifically addresses the need for GE modified food contents to bear labels

Labeling GE foods is not a novel idea. The European Union specifically addresses the new properties and risks of biotech crops by requiring all food, animal feed and processed products with GE contents to bear labels. The EU is among nearly 50 developed countries that require the GE products they import from U.S. to be labeled. Furthermore, a 2012 Mellman Group study showed that 91% of U.S. voters favored GE labeling requirements.

“There is broad concern about the impact of GE foods on our environment and the publc has a right to know if the and their families are consuming GE products,” said Jeff Tittel, director of New Jersey Sierra Club. “This is no different than current labeling practices we have for preservatives, high fructose corn syrup or organic blueberries. Consumers have a right to know so they can make informed choices and that is what this legislation does.”

“We strongly urge the legislature to support the bill to label genetically engineered products. Consumers have the right to know the ingredients in the food they purchase,” said Lucia Huebner, vice president of the Northeast Organic Farmers Association of New Jersey. “We are very concerned about issues such as cross contamination of seeds, integrity of agricultural ecosystems, protection of native pollinators and the wellbeing of fa

Food Industry: Telling the Truth About Food Ingredients Helps the Consumer, the Economy and the Environment - by Ellen Moyer, Ph.D.

Food ingredient labeling makes headline news these days. On January 22, 2013, ABC News reported that an estimated seven percent of the United States food supply contains fraudulent ingredients.

These are unlabeled ingredients that are used as cheap substitutes -- for example, industrial dyes masquerading as paprika. Proposition 37, the California ballot measure that would have required labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods, was narrowly defeated in the November 2012 elections; however, the battle rages on.

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to approve GM salmon soon after a 60-day public comment period ends on February 25, 2013. Under current rules, labeling of GM salmon would not be required. Recent polls indicate that over 90 percent of Americans think GM foods should be labeled. As of December 18, 2012, over one million people had asked the FDA to label GM foods.

The stakes are high, because food labels cause problems for food companies. For example, on January 30, 2013, Network news reported on a lawsuit against a food manufacturer for using partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (a trans fat) in frozen pizza, a fact that is disclosed on the pizza box.

Negative health effects have caused many countries to ban or limit the use of artificial trans fats, including Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and the Republic of South Africa. California and 13 cities and towns in the United States also restrict the use of trans fats in settings such as restaurants and schools.

"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants," United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote in 1913. It is time to shed more light on the substances we consume, not only by labeling GM foods and verifying food ingredients, but also by disclosing much more. Even if risks of some unlabeled ingredients are unclear, consumers should be allowed to make informed choices about what they eat. 

Read more:   Ellen Moyer, Ph.D.: Telling the Truth About Food Ingredients Helps the Consumer, the Economy and the Environment

Genetically Modified Foods: European Food Safety Authority publishes initial review on GM maize and herbicide study

The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that a recent paper raising concerns about the potential toxicity of genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and of a herbicide containing glyphosate is of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment.

EFSA’s initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate. To enable the fullest understanding of the study the Authority has invited authors Séralini et al to share key additional information.

Such shortcomings mean that EFSA is presently unable to regard the authors’ conclusions as scientifically sound. The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested.

Therefore, based on the information published by the authors, EFSA does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate.

EFSA’s preliminary review issued today is the first step in a two-stage process. A second analysis will be delivered by the end of October 2012. This will take into account any additional information from the study authors, who will be given an opportunity to supply study documentation and procedures to the Authority to ensure the broadest possible understanding of their work. It will also include an overview of Member State assessments of the paper and an analysis from the German authorities responsible for the assessment of glyphosate.

Read more: News - European Food Safety Authority publishes...

Genetically Modified Foods: Pesticides Study - US farmers using more pesticides on 'superweeds'

U.S. farmers are using more hazardous pesticides to fight weeds and insects due largely to heavy adoption of genetically modified crop technologies that are sparking a rise of "superweeds" and hard-to-kill insects, according to a newly released study.

Genetically engineered crops have led to a 404 million pounds increase in overall pesticide use by from the time they were introduced in 1996 through 2011, according to the report by Charles Benbrook, a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University.

Of that total, herbicide use increased over the 16-year period by 527 million pounds while insecticide use decreased by 123 million pounds.

Read more: Study: US farmers using more pesticides on 'superweeds' - U.S. News

Genetically Modified Foods: GMO rat lab gets serious

In the latest storm of controversy, critics of genetically modified products and organisms (GMOs or GMs) saw pictures like one of a distended lab rat and cried: “I knew it!”

The jury is still out on the methodology of the tests it was subjected to.

One of the findings’ co-authors, Joel Spiroux, is president of the Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering, CRIIGEN, in France.

Corrine Lepage is one of the heads at CRIIGEN, was once environment minister in the French government, and is now a member of the European Parliament. She’s not surprised.

At the parliament, Lepage said: “We’ve spoken plainly and bluntly about this, and I hope things are going to change. I’ve called it to the attention of the ministers of the 27 EU member states and the European Commissioner responsible for health policy John Dalli, to ask that all GMs consumed in Europe be subject to studies lasting for two years.”

The anti-GM movement has long sought to involve more players in seeking scientific answers.
 
To read more and view video: GMO rat lab gets serious | euronews, world news

Genetic Engineering: Germany to oppose easing of genetically modified trace rule

In 2011, the EU adopted new rules allowing traces of unapproved GM material in animal feed imports, to prevent disruption to feed grain imports as GM crops are introduced more quickly in other regions than the EU approves new types.

But German Farming and Consumer Protection Minister Ilse Aigner would oppose any move to end the zero-tolerance rule for unapproved GM content in imports of human food, a ministry spokesman said, confirming a newspaper report.


Aigner believes changing the zero-tolerance rule for food imports would damage the rights of consumers to buy GM-free food if they wish and would also reduce transparency of food labelling, the spokesman said.

EU policy on GM crops has long been politically fraught, with a majority of European consumers opposed to modified foods, but with GM crops now making up a large proportion of harvests in North and South America.

New GM strains are approved most years in these regions but such crops cannot be imported by the EU even in trace amounts until given the green light by the bloc's approvals process.

Germany expects the EU Commission, the bloc's executive arm, to issue a new proposal to permit a 0.1 percent level of unapproved GMs in foods, the spokesman said.


The European court ruling in September 2011 about unapproved GMs in honey also confirmed the principle of zero tolerance in food, the spokesman said.

Honey containing even small traces of pollen from GM plants must receive prior EU authorisation before it can be sold as food, Europe's highest court had said.

Note EU-Digest: O tolerance is the only way to go.






Read more: Germany to oppose easing of genetically modified trace rule | Reuters

Fish Farming: GE salmon approval creates growing list of 'what if' scenarios

News that the U.S. government is close to approving the first genetically engineered animal – AquaBounty’s Atlantic salmon – for production and consumption has upset biotech naysayers and kicked off a lengthening list of “what if” scenarios.

Derisively labeled “Frankenfish” by biotechnology opponents, genetically engineered (GE) fish are nonetheless circling closer to U.S. dinner tables. News that the U.S. government is close to approving the first genetically engineered animal – AquaBounty’s Atlantic salmon – for production and consumption has upset biotech naysayers and kicked off a lengthening list of “what if” scenarios.

For more: GE salmon approval creates growing list of 'what if' scenarios | Government content from Western Farm Press

EU tightens regulations on Chinese GM rice imports - by Mark Astley

European Union controls on Chinese rice product imports will be tightened in response to an increasing number of food alerts and border rejections of genetically modified (GM) contaminated products.

For more: EU tightens regulations on Chinese GM rice imports

Genetically modified food: GMO Lobbyists Costs Reach Over Half a Billion Dollars - by Dr. Mercola

In Europe genetically modified foods and ingredients have to be labeled.

In the United States, they do not. But the truth is, if and when GM labeling is finally required in the United States, you're going to see changes to the majority of food labels in your supermarket, as GM foods already widely appear in our food supply. Most people are not aware that nearly EVERY processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the "USDA Organic" label is filled with GM components. This is due to the amount of GM crops now grown in the United States (over 90 percent of all corn is GM corn and over 95 percent all soy is GM soy).

In just over a decade, the food and agriculture biotechnology industry has spent more than $572 million in campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures, according to an analysis by Food & Water Watch. Key among the goals of this intense lobbying effort is to prevent GM food labeling and keep Americans in the dark about the contents of their food.

Over 95 percent of Americans polled said they think GM foods should require a label, stating it's an ethical issue and consumers should be able to make an informed choice. Like people in Europe, Americans are suspicious of GM foods, and a large part of why many continue to buy them is because they are unaware that they're already in the food. A prominent GM food label would be a death sentence to U.S. GM crops, which are right now enjoying a free for all when it comes to entering the food market.

It takes only a flick of biotech's wrist to move Congress' regulatory arms, and the truth is the revolving door between the two is spinning so fast that the line between industry lobbyists and legislators is permanently blurred.

As the Food and Water Watch report also  noted:

• Clarence Thomas, who did not withdraw himself from a Supreme Court decision on genetically engineered alfalfa last year, used to be the general counsel for Monsanto.
• Michael Taylor, who was formerly the vice president of Monsanto, is now the Food and Drug Administration Deputy Commissioner for Foods.
• Roger Beachy, the former director of the Monsanto-funded Danforth Plant Science Center in Saint Louis, is now the director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
• Islam Siddiqui was vice president of Monsanto and Dupont's funded pesticide-promotion group CropLife. He is now the agricultural negotiator for the U.S. Trade Representative. In other words, he is the enforcer for U.S. foreign policy that countries have to accept our genetically engineered exports.
• Rajiv Shah is the former Agricultural Development Director for the pro-biotech Gates Foundation, who are frequently partnering with Monsanto. He served as Obama's USDA undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics.
• Elena Kagan has served as President Obama's Solicitor General. She took Monsanto's side against organic farmers on the roundup ready alfalfa case.
• Ramona Ramiro, corporate counsel to Dupont, another biotech bully, has been nominated by President Obama to serve as general counsel for the USDA.

In the US this is one of the few issues where Republicans and Democrats have found that the economic benefits of backing GMO products are more important than the moral and health issues. As Cummins noted in his report, both parties are guilty.

Note EU-Digest: Unfortunately some EU parliamentarians and EU member state officials are also being "arm twisted" by US Food and Agricultural lobbyists. France's highest court on Monday overturned France's ban on growing a strain of genetically modified maize (corn) developed by U.S. biotech firm Monsanto, saying it was not sufficiently justified. France, the EU's largest grain producer whose citizens are among the staunchest biotech skeptics, banned growing of such crops in 2008 after protests by local green groups, citing a "serious risk to the environment."  Having tried and failed to force several EU countries to lift their cultivation bans, last year the Commission proposed letting member states decide themselves whether to grow or ban GMO crop cultivation.

Under European Union law, only two GMO varieties are approved for cultivation.

 For more: GMO Campaign Costs Reach Over Half a Billion Dollars

Can genetically manipulated foods be the culprit: German E. coli outbreak is a killer hybrid - blaming game has begun

New Scientist reports that the bacteria were initially identified as a strain of E. coli called STEC, or Shiga-like toxin-producing E. coli, which secrete toxins that cause bloody diarrhoea. Normally about 5 to 10 per cent of STEC infections progress to a severe complication called haemolytic-uraemic syndrome (HUS), in which toxin-induced blood clots in capillaries damage major organs, especially the kidneys.

The German national consulting lab for HUS at the University Hospital in Münster yesterday announced that it had sequenced the outbreak bacteria's genome and in addition to STEC genes, they found genes from another kind of E. coli called entero-aggregative E. coli. These latter bacteria normally adhere to the gut wall, causing watery, persistent diarrhoea. While STEC lurks mainly in cattle guts, entero-aggregative E. coli are known only in humans.

"The rapid whole-genome sequencing results enabled us to discover within days a unique combination of virulence traits," says Alexander Mellmann, one of the researchers in Münster. The team plans to study whether this has caused a true increase in virulence in the hybrid.

Damaging is also that there seems to be a concerted attack against the producers of natural foods by the powerful US based chemical and food industry, which has seen its share of genetically manipulated food sector come under pressure from natural foods and which has not made much headway in convincing EU lawmakers that they should allow genetically modified foods and seeds sold in Europe. E-Coli epidemics do happen all over the world, including the US. and should have nothing to do with the increased sales of natural foods. As a matter of fact it might be also wise to look into the influence of genetically produced foods on infectious diseases such as the E-Coli becoming resistant to anti-bacterial treatments.

EU-Digest