Articles

Morton Biskind, a physician from Westport, Connecticut, was a courageous man. At the peak of the cold war, in 1953, he complained of maladies afflicting both domestic animals and people for the first time. He concluded that the popular insect poison DDT was the agent of their disease. DDT, he said, was “dangerous for all animal life from insects to mammals.”

The Reign of DDT

Yet, he was astonished at what little was done to restrict or ban DDT. On the contrary, officials and scientists defended it:

“[V]irtually the entire apparatus of communication, lay and scientific alike, has been devoted to denying, concealing, suppressing, distorting… [the bad news about DDT]. Libel, slander and economic boycott have not been overlooked… And a new principle of toxicology has… become firmly entrenched…: no matter how lethal a poison may be for all other forms of animal life, if it doesn’t kill human beings instantly, it is safe. When… it unmistakably does kill a human, this was the victim’s own fault – either he was “allergic” to it… or he didn’t use it properly,” he wrote (Biskind 1953).

CHICAGO — Products labeled as non-G.M.O. are increasing in use among millennials — and among baby boomers, people in Generation X and pretty much all age groups in the United States, according to data from the Natural Marketing Institute.

Data from the N.M.I. shows use of food labeled as non-G.M.O. rose to 59% of the general U.S. population in 2014, which was up from 53% in 2013 and 37% in 2012. Among millennials, the percentage rose to 72% in 2014 from 61% in 2013 and 45% in 2012. For Generation X, the percentage slipped to 58% in 2014 from 60% in 2013, but it was up from 41% in 2012. For baby boomers, the percentages were 49% in 2014, 47% in 2013 and 29% in 2012. For the “mature” generation, the percentages were 44% in 2014, 39% in 2013 and 28% in 2012.

Non-GMO labels are on the rise in European countries – but unlike the US, EU legislation requires all food containing above trace levels of GM to be labelled. So is there even a need for GMO-free?

The European Parliament today expressed its support for the TTIP trade negotiations between the European Union and the United States.

The resolution adopted today [1] is the parliament’s unique opportunity to give its opinion on the ongoing trade talks. The result of the vote is a setback for citizens, the environment, and democracy, reacted Friends of the Earth Europe.

Natacha Cingotti, Friends of the Earth Europe trade campaigner, said: “The people of Europe are rightly concerned about the threat TTIP poses to our environment, food, health and social protections – they expected the European Parliament to take a strong stance but MEPs have sided with big business and put democracy at risk by supporting these talks. The parliament has backed dangerous propositions within TTIP such as special privileges for foreign investors and plans to permanently align existing and future rules between Europe and the US which would lead to lower environmental, food and safety standards.

Coroprate Europe Observatory & Inf'OGM

7th July 2015

The EU Parliament is voting tomorrow on the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) being negotiated between the USA and the EU. But do MEPs realise that the agreement could force European markets open to 'new biotech' foods and crops using advanced GM technologies that do not meet current definitions of 'GMO' within the EU?

(.....)

One of the most contentious issues is whether TTIP will weaken Europe's rules over genetically modified organisms (GMOs), a long-time target for US exporters who claim these rules hamper their profits.

Meanwhile, the biotech industry is pushing for the products of the 'next generation' biotech crops to escape the EU's legislation on GMOs and therefore to go unregulated. Is there a link between this new push, and TTIP? Emails obtained via a Freedom of Information request show this might indeed be the case.

Responding to public concerns, the European Commission has fervently denied any claims that EU food safety standards, or other standards for that matter, would be lowered as a result of TTIP.

Five state governments in Germany are putting pressure on Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt, introducing a bill for a nationwide ban on GMOs instead of his “patchwork” proposal. EurActiv Germany reports.

Germany’s debate over banning genetically modified (GM) plants has come to a head: Green/Social Democratic coalitions in the states of Rhineland-Palatinate, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig-Holstein presented a bill on Tuesday (30 June) proposing a nationwide ban on GM plants effective “in the entire sovereign territory”.

Agriculture Minister Schmidt is in a tight squeeze. Though he hopes to reject the cultivation of GM crops, Schmidt has left it up to German states to decide on a ban. “Now I expect the participants not to further set themselves in stone ideologically,” he said.

Freedom from GM food only through national regulation

“We do not want to encourage the use of chemicals” – minister

On 23 June 2015, the Swedish Minister for Rural Affairs Sven-Erik Bucht received sufficient support at the environmental and agricultural committee for the government to adopt a new GMO position.

The Swedish government’s new GMO position highlights that the government could possibly reach a different conclusion from the expert authorities in EU concerning a genetically modified crop to be approved for cultivation or not. If the GM crop is linked to the use of the herbicide glufosinate ammonium, Sweden will vote no.

The government may also choose to vote no on the cultivation of GM crops, which leads to the use of extraordinarily high levels of pesticides, even if the expert authorities do not foresee any environmental or health risks with the GMO.

(.....)

According to the Swedish Chemicals Agency, it is illegal to sell or use glufosinate ammonium herbicide in Sweden. Back in 2009, the chemical company Bayer recalled its glufosinate product Basta. Since 1 January 2011, sales of the herbicide by the company to retailers has been forbidden. Since 1 January 2012 it has been forbidden to sell the herbicide to end users. The use of the herbicide has been forbidden in Sweden since 1 January 2013.

Argentina: Federal judge accepts environmental lawsuit against GMOs

Class action lawsuit attacks GMOs for environmental damage and health impacts

A federal judge in Argentina has ruled that an unprecedented class action lawsuit, demanding a ban on the release of GMOs and their associated pesticides, can proceed.

The lawsuit asks the government to provisionally suspend the uncontrolled open release of GMOs – for example, the sale of RR2 Pro/Liberty soybeans – on the grounds that they violate seed laws. The lawsuit also demands labelling of GMOs.

The lawsuit further argues for “a ban on the application of pesticides used for farming until their safety for the environment, ecosystems, biodiversity, the health of living beings, the cultural heritage of the Argentine people, and the sustainability of the production model is scientifically proven”.

Kroger and Safeway--the #1 and #2 U.S. conventional grocery chains--have joined other major retailers like Target, Meijer, Aldi, Giant Eagle, Whole Foods and many others in protecting consumers, wild salmon, and the environment by rejecting GE salmon, but Costco--one of the largest retailers of salmon and seafood in the U.S.--is one of the last large retailers that hasn’t made a commitment not to sell GE salmon.

Sign the petition urging Costco to join its competitors and commit to keeping GE salmon off its shelves.

CRIIGEN

Lundi 22 Juin 2015

Laboratory rats are frequently used for testing chemicals and genetically modified (GMO) foods, as the last step before commercialization in order to determine effects on mammalian health and predict risk in humans. Such chemicals include pesticides (which often are endocrine disruptors or toxic to the nervous system), plasticizers, and food additives. Some are suspected of being carcinogenic, and others are gradually being banned after having poisoned people and the ecosystem.

However, health agencies consider that a high proportion of laboratory animals are predisposed to developing many diseases, based on industrial data archives known as "historical control data". According to these data, 13–71% of the animals would spontaneously or naturally present mammary tumors and 26–93% pituitary tumors, and the kidney function of these animals would frequently be deficient. This prevents the attribution of observed toxic effects to the products tested, and requires the sacrifice of a large number of animals in an attempt to observe statistically significant results in carcinogenicity tests, for example. But often, doubt persists and the product remains on the market. Do these diseases originate from genetic or environmental factors?

To investigate this question, the team of Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, supported by CRIIGEN, analyzed the dried feed of laboratory animals using standard methods and with the help of accredited laboratories. These animal feeds, sourced from five continents, are generally considered balanced and hygienic. The study was exceptionally wide-ranging; it investigated 13 samples of commonly used laboratory rat feeds for traces of 262 pesticides, 4 heavy metals, 17 dioxins and furans, 18 PCBs and 22 GMOs.