Articles

Monarchs may win 'endangered species' protection (The Ecologist)

With Monarch butterfly numbers down by 90% in 20 years - largely as a result of GMO crops in key feeding areas - the US Fish and Wildlife Service is reviewing the insect's status with a view to granting it legal protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Endangered Species Act protection may be warranted for Monarch butterflies, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The agency will now conduct a one-year status review on monarchs, which have declined by 90% in the past 20 years. The migratory butterflies are especially vulnerable as they migrate vast distances of 3,000 miles or more each year, between the US, Mexico and Canada. The migration cycle is unique in the natural world as it spans multiple generations. "This journey has become more perilous for many monarchs because of threats along their migratory paths and on their breeding and wintering grounds", says the FWS.

City Council panel backs away from GMO ban it previously supported

Three days before Los Angeles lawmakers voted on a proposal to ban genetically modified crops, the world's largest biotechnology trade group hired three top City Hall lobbyists to stop it.

The matter had sailed through a meeting weeks before with only one City Council member expressing doubt.

But when a council committee sat down to vote again this month, three of the five members came out strongly against it — though they said lobbyists had nothing to do with it.

The action shocked Councilman Paul Koretz, who co-authored the proposal and expected his colleagues to rubber-stamp it as they had many times before.

"Since nothing else had changed ... it clearly was heavy lobbying," Koretz said later.

Such a ban would be largely symbolic in L.A. because there are currently no known genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs, grown within the city.

Iowa lawsuits accuse Syngenta over rejected GMO crops

Iowa farmers and companies are suing Syngenta AG, claiming they suffered financial losses when China rejected corn shipments containing a genetically modified seed developed by the agribusiness giant but not approved for use by China.

Sixteen growers and businesses filed suit Monday seeking monetary and punitive damages from Syngenta, which is based in Switzerland and has operations in Iowa. Including previous legal action, the company now faces challenges from more than 100 farmers and commodity traders, including Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland.

"Syngenta has caused damages to U.S. farmers, grain handlers and exporters," the latest lawsuits allege. "Syngenta's conduct in marketing, distributing and selling unapproved corn seed violates the legal standards of the marketplace because the primary market risk falls on U.S. farmers, grain handlers and exporters, not on Syngenta."

Demand for products that don’t contain genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is exploding.

Many food companies are seeking certification that their products don’t have any genetically modified ingredients, and not just the brands popular in the health food aisle. Even plain Cheerios, that iconic cereal from General Mills, no longer contains GMOs.

“We currently are at over $8.5 billion in annual sales of verified products,” said Megan Westgate, executive director of the Non-GMO Project, the main supplier of non-GMO labels.

To receive the label, a product has to be certified as containing ingredients with less than 1 percent genetic modification. Westgate says that’s a realistic standard, while totally GMO-free is not. She says natural foods stores began the process of defining a standard, involving other interested players along the way, including consumers. Now, General Mills is just one of the big food companies selling non-GMO products.

Sales of food labeled as “Non-GMO” ballooned to over $3 billion in 2013, according to the Wall Street Journal.

“Interestingly, with all of this traction in the natural sector,” Westgate said, “we’re increasingly seeing more conventional companies coming on board and having their products verified.”

SUMMARY

The Ghent court of appeal has heavily reduced the sentences of 11 protesters who were accused of causing criminal damage for their role in destroying a genetically modified potato crop in 2011

“Not hardened criminals”

A group of protesters who objected to a test project of genetically modified potatoes have had their sentences drastically reduced by the Ghent court of appeal, after the court threw out a conviction for criminal conspiracy.

The action by the so-called Field Liberation Movement took place in the East Flemish town of Wetteren in May 2011. The target: a field of test crops being grown as part of an experiment run by the University of Ghent, the Flemish Institute for Biotechnology and the Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, both agencies of the Flemish government. The activists destroyed a third of the potato crop and clashed with police, who made 40 arrests.

In the initial trial, a group of 11 activists was convicted of criminal damage and conspiracy, and given suspended sentences of three to six months as well as fines of €550.

The appeal court has now reduced the sentences to one month suspended.

Monsanto implicated in “fraud and abuse of patent law”

22 December 2014 / Munich.

Patent EP1812575 held by the US company Monsanto has been revoked by the European Patent Office (EPO) after the international coalition No Patents on Seeds! filed an opposition in May 2014. A further opposition was filed by Nunhems / Bayer CropScience. In November 2014, Monsanto requested that the patent be revoked in its entirety and the EPO complied with this request. The patent covered conventionally bred tomatoes with a natural resistance to a fungal disease called botrytis, which were claimed as an invention. The original tomatoes used for this patent were accessed via the international gene bank in Gatersleben, Germany, and it was already known that these plants had the desired resistance. Monsanto produced a cleverly worded patent in order to create the impression that genetic engineering had been used to produce the tomatoes and to make it look 'inventive'.

“Revoking this patent is an important success. It was more or less based on a combination of fraud, abuse of patent law and biopiracy. The patent could have been used to monopolise important genetic resources. Now breeders, growers and consumers have a chance of benefiting from a greater diversity of tomatoes improved by further breeding”, says Christoph Then, a coordinator of No Patents on Seeds!. “The intended resistance is based on complex genetic conditions, which are not known in detail. So genetic engineering is clearly not an option in this case.”

In a small victory against GMO’s (Genetically Modified Organisms), a mayor of a town in Florida has called for GMO free vending machines in all the city owned buildings.

Peter Bober, the mayor of Hollywood, Florida, has passed a new mandate that will require all of the 45 vending machines that the city owns to offer GMO free choices. The mandate will also require those vending machines to include healthier offerings that meet recommendations from the American Heart Association for healthier snack and drink options in the work place.

This is just one of the many measures that have been taken around the globe, as consumers, governments, and activists take steps against GMOs and demand healthier, more natural food. Other cities in Florida, including Hallandale Beach and Miami Beach, have passed local resolutions to require GMO labeling in their towns, and they are not alone.

During the first roundtable meeting of the “Keeping GMOs out of organics” project, fifteen experts on prevention of GMOs in the GM-free supply chain identified key points to staying GM-free.

Among the key strategic points identified by the experts were the need to address the costs of coexistence, the socioeconomic impact of GMOs in the entire GM-free sector supply chain, the need to collect data in the field and the importance of better information sharing regarding best practices and available tools to prevent GM contamination. Moreover, the experts also discussed the need to join efforts and to develop better coordination with GM-free conventional agriculture regarding the introduction of GMOs in the supply chain.

We, the undersigned, representing diverse constituencies from across Africa and the world, working towards food sovereignty, are strongly opposed to the human feeding trials taking place at the Iowa State University involving the so called genetically modified (GM) ‘super banana’ - GM Matooke, Sweet and Roasting bananas.

These trials funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are being carried out under the leadership of Dr. Wendy White of the Iowa State University, on 12 young students, with the intention of introducing the GM banana first in Uganda and later, to other countries in East Africa. The GM banana, currently undergoing field trials in Uganda, was developed by scientists at Queensland University of Technology in Australia, similarly also funded by the Gates Foundation.

Despite claims to the contrary from the promoters and developers of GM crops, and to reiterate what nearly three hundred global scientists have stated in an Open Letter in December 2013, there is no consensus that GM crops are safe for human consumption. Most of the research carried out by independent scientists on GM crops directly contradicts the results of biotech industry-sponsored studies that claim no evidence of risk or harm.

China's booming dairy industry has meant a surge in US hay exports, but the country's resistance to imports of some US genetically-modified crops (GMOs) is reducing US exports of hay modified with biotech alfalfa.

US farmers have embraced the GMO technology that helps to kill weeds, fight pests and improve yields. But China has not accepted all GMO agriculture products and has tight restrictions on imports.

Earlier this year, China started testing to determine if US hay imports contained the genetically modified alfalfa developed by Monsanto Co, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal on Monday.

"China is among the largest markets for US hay; so, of course it will affect exports. Again, it comes back to industry sourcing product as demanded by the customer. It is our understanding the Chinese government is aware of the need for regulatory approval and that it might take at least a year," he said. "In the meantime, we strictly adhere to China's zero-tolerance policy and do our best to please our customers in all markets with properly sourced product."