Articles

Genetically modified organisms are no riskier than their conventionally farmed equivalents, the European Commission's Chief Scientific Advisor Anne Glover has told EurActiv [...] ”There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health, so that's pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food,” Glover told EurActiv, saying the precautionary principle no longer applies as a result. Glover said she was not promoting GMOs, and added that ”eating food is risky”, explaining: ”Most of us forget that most plants are toxic, and it's only because we cook them, or the quantity that we eat them in, that makes them suitable.”

Maharashtra Agriculture Minister Radhakrishna Vikhe-Patil wants Bt cotton companies to tie up with agriculture universities in the state and pump money into research to find an alternative to itself. Companies that refuse to cooperate will be banned, Vikhe-Patil said. ”I had my serious reservations about Bt even in 1999. It hasn't helped dry-land farmers, like those in Vidarbha. It takes care of only bollworm. But farmers still have to use pesticides for other pests like reddening of leaves (lalya),” the minister told The Indian Express. ”There is a clear mismatch between promised and actual benefits, especially in input costs and productivity.”

Ramsar Convention Adopts Anti-GM Rice Resolution

By Consumers Union of Japan & No! GMO Campaign

Rice paddy fields in many countries are supporting wildlife such as migratory birds and marine species. After fierce opposition from NGOs at the 11th meeting of the Ramsar Convention for wetlandsmeeting in Bucharest, Romania, the text of the resolution was amended so that it clearly states that only “conventionally bred rice varieties” can be introduced in rice paddies, to protect wetland ecosystems. At the meeting in July, 2012, the United States proposed controversial language that would have caused uproar in Asia, where most of the world’s rice is produced. No genetically modified rice has yet been approved in any country, while major rice producing countries are strongly opposed to GM rice. Delegates from Austria, France, Cyprus and Denmark, speaking for the EU, made a great effort to make sure that GM rice was not accepted by the Ramsar Convention. This anti-GM rice position was supported by Japan, South Korea, and China. Recognizing that irrigated rice fields are a major type of wetlands under the Ramsar Convention, pesticide use should be reduced to protect biological diversity. To introduce genetically modified rice, such as BT rice that produces a toxin that kills insects, is not an option in this context. Farmers need help to learn how to reduce pesticide use, but not if that means corporate campaigns to introduce untested and poorly risk assessed GM rice. The message from the Ramsar Convention is: Do not allow GM rice in your country. Report of the World Wetlands NGO Conference: Petruta Moisi, Eco-Counselling Centre Galati, Romania, on behalf of the World Wetland Network, reported on the recommendations of the World Wetlands NGO Conference, which took place just prior to COP 11, expressing concern over the continued degradation of designated and undesignated wetlands and the failure of many parties to apply the wetland wise use concept in practice. She drew attention to the draft resolutions on: sustainable tourism, stressing the need to balance tourism and local demands on wetland resources; institutional arrangements for the Secretariat, which should bring clear benefits and more involvement of civil society; energy, calling for cumulative impact assessment of small hydropower systems; and agriculture and pesticide use, expressing concern for the potential increased use of genetically modified organisms to control pests.

Bt cotton may have taken almost 99% area under cotton cultivation in Maharashtra but, looking at the diminishing profit margins, the state government is planning to evolve other options to the genetically modified variety of the crop. [...] State agriculture minister Radhakrishan Vikhe-Patil has asked agriculture universities to develop alternatives to Bt cotton to make cotton a more profitable venture for farmers. [...] State agriculture commissioner Umakant Dangat told TOI that since the farmers took up Bt cotton the input costs in the form of fertilizers and pesticides have gone up manifold and it is no longer a sustainable crop, especially in the rain-fed or dry-land areas of the state like Vidarbha and Marathwada. ”Despite cultivation of Bt cotton across the state, the productivity, profitability and sustainability of the crop have gone down.

There is one thing genetically modified foods always bring to the table - controversy. And there is one thing European Union authorities and biotech companies seem intent on ignoring: the fact that nobody wants GM crops or animals on their plates. Last month, European food authorities took steps to open our markets to genetically modified animals, by publishing guidelines for their introduction. The guidelines, commissioned by the European Commission on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority give biotech companies the capability to seek permission to develop GM animals like salmon, pig, sheep and chicken.

In 2008, Egypt reached an agreement with the US-based Monsanto Corporation to import, grow and sell the company's genetically-modified maize. The first shipment of 70 tons arrived in Egypt in December 2010 and was planted in ten governorates without restriction on planting. The second and most recent shipment of 40 tons arrived in January 2012, but was seized by the Ministry of Agriculture because it was not properly approved. [...] Dr. Ayman Farid Abou Hadid and Saad Nassar, two advisers from the Ministry of Agriculture, had originally signed the customs papers approving the shipment. [...] ”This is a blatant violation of both the Constitution and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety that Egypt ratified,” stressed [Osama El Tayeb, a microbiology and immunology professor at the Phramacy Faculty of 6th of October University], who has also acted as Egypt's focal point for biosafety issues since being appointed by the Environment Ministry in 2000.

Genetically modified foods are detrimental to human health and should carry clear labeling that warns consumers, argued protesters with GMO Free Idaho, standing outside U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo's office on July 18. ”We're here to educate people on what a GMO is,” said Leslie Stoddard. ”Ninety percent of consumers, when polled, said they wanted GMOs labelled.” GMO's are genetically modified organisms, or crops with DNA that has been modified to increase yields and flourish around chemical sprays, like Monsanto's Roundup. The farm bill recently debated by the U.S. Senate included an amendment introduced by Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, which would give states the ability to require labels on foods containing GMOs. However, that amendment was defeated 73 to 26, with Sen. Crapo voting against.

A fight over genetically engineered foods has been heating up in the nation's grocery aisles. Now it's headed for the ballot box. Voters will soon decide whether to make California the first state in the country to require labels on products such as sweet corn whose genes have been altered to make them resistant to pests. Proposition 37 promises to set up a big-money battle pitting natural food businesses and activists against multinational companies including PepsiCo,Coca-Cola and Kellogg. Backers and opponents have already raised nearly $4 million combined for campaigns to sway voters, an amount that's likely to swell into the tens of millions of dollars as the November election approaches.

Every year, about half of all US farmland is planted in corn and soy. Upward of 90 percent of soy and 70 percent of corn is engineered to withstand a herbicide called glyphosate through Monsanto's Roundup Ready seed lines. And after so many years of lashing so much land with the same herbicide, glyphosate-resistant superweeds are now vexing farmers and "alarming" weed control experts throughout the Midwest. Dow's 2,4-D-ready corn and soy seeds will be engineered to withstand glyphosate and 2,4-D, so farmers can douse their fields with both herbicides. According to an analysis of USDA data by the Center for Food Safety, farmers applied 4.9 million pounds of glyphosate to soybean crops in 1994, the year before Roundup Ready seeds hit the field. By 2006 (the last year for which there is data), glyphosate use in soybeans had hit 96.7 million pounds—a nearly 20-fold increase.

Recent investigations reveal that new approvals for the cultivation of genetically engineered crops in Europe in 2012 are unlikely. The Commission returned the dossiers for three maize lines to the European Food Safety Agency. [...] ”In our view, this is a first sign that the Commission acknowledges that the present risk assessment for genetically engineered crops must be improved considerably. If EFSA was honest they would admit that there isn't even any precise knowledge about the content of insecticidal Bt toxin in the plants”, says Christoph Then for Testbiotech „During the last ten years, there have been manifest problems with the independence of EFSA's GMO experts.