Trump orders simpler path for genetically engineered food

Candice Choi
The Seattle Times

President Trump wants to make it easier for genetically engineered plants and animals to enter the food supply, and he signed an executive order Tuesday directing federal agencies to simplify the "regulatory maze" for producers.

The move comes as companies are turning to newer genetic engineering techniques that make it easier to tinker with the traits of plants and animals.

Greg Jaffe, biotechnology director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the impact of the executive order will depend on the details of how it's carried out by federal agencies. Simply deregulating could make people lose confidence in genetically engineered foods, he said.

"There needs to be an assurance of safety for those products," said Jaffe, who was among those briefed by government officials on a call before the order was announced.

The order also noted the government's policies should urge trading partners to adopt similar regulatory approaches. Even if the U.S. loosens regulations on genetically engineered foods, Jaffe noted companies could be hampered by regulations overseas.

How genetically engineered plants and animals are currently regulated in the U.S. varies depending on the exact methods used to produce them, and federal agencies have already been working to clarify policies as new technologies have emerged. But already, some aspects of the administration's approach have worried consumer advocacy groups.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed changing its regulations in a way that would mean much of the genetically modified corn and soy grown in the U.S. today would not necessarily have been subject to special oversight.

Crops produced with newer gene-editing technologies also wouldn't automatically be subject to special oversight under the proposed rule, unless they posed a risk as plant pests. Companies have said that gene-editing allows them to more precisely alter plants and animals, and that what they're doing could theoretically be achieved through conventional breeding. 

Read more

New Meta-Analysis Reveals Extensive Phenotypic Differences Between GMO and Non-GMO Cultivated Plants

Green Med Info

Claims of "substantial equivalence" of GM plants again shown to be false

The myth of “substantial equivalence” between GM crops and their closest non-GM relatives (called “isolines”) has taken yet another scientific hit, this time from a new peer-reviewed paper discussed in an article on the website Hygeia Analytics.

The researchers from Mexico City published their meta-analysis of genetic data on rice, canola, maize, sunflower, and pumpkin. They looked at wild, GMO, and non-GMO cultivated varieties of these five crops, analyzing phenotypic change.

The phenotype of a crop is defined by a set of characteristics expressed by the crop’s genetic code (DNA). In theory, genetically engineered plants will show phenotypic changes only linked to the traits that scientists added to the GMO in the hope that they will be expressed. For example, a corn plant engineered to express the Bt toxin should not be different from normal corn in other ways.

However, the Hygeia article says, "Genetics are complicated and unintended consequences often occur." Of the five crops analyzed in the new study, maize, pumpkin and rice showed the most variation between GMO and non-GMO cultivars. These three crops demonstrated wide variation for traits related to days to flowering, number of seeds/fruit, plant height, and pollen viability. In fact, the researchers report that for non-GMO and GMO cultivars of maize, pumpkin and rice, “almost all analyzed traits differ statistically".

Read more

Gene-edited super-crops to be grown in UK for the first time

The Telegraph

Gene-edited super-crops are to be sown in Britain in a European-first after scientists exploited a legal loophole.

The Government has quietly approved the farming of gene-edited (GE) Camelina oilseed crops as part of a trial to super-charge the plants to produce Omega 3 fish oils, one of the most popular food supplements.

The pilot was approved because, unlike genetically modified (GM) plants, the Camelina oilseed crops contain no foreign DNA. Instead, they had their genetic code altered in a way that could have happened naturally.

Scientists say gene-editing can cut the time it takes to engineer new plants from decades to months. They argue embracing the new technology is vital if Britain is to benefit from GE crops and help maintain a sustainable source of fish oils in face of depleted ocean stocks.

The trial starts as the European Court of Justice prepares to decide whether GE plants can be legally treated as if they were conventional crops across the EU.

Critics, however, accused Defra (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) of pre-empting a decision by the court which could end up requiring GM-style regulation of GE crops.

Read more

Millennials 'have no qualms about GM crops' unlike older generation

The Telegraph UK 

 

The advent of genetically modified crops caused a scandal in the 1990s. 

But the younger generation is largely relaxed about eating GM foods, new research has shown, as farmers called for a post-Brexit technology revolution. 

 

Two thirds of under-30s believe technology is a good thing for farming and support futuristic farming techniques, according to a survey. 

 

Only 20 per cent of millennials expressed concerns about the benefits of gene editing or genetically modifying crops, despite decades of opposition and media warnings. 

 

The poll of more than 1,600 18 to 30-year-olds, carried out for the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), also found that around two thirds of young people support the use of drones in livestock farming to count sheep and in arable farming to assess, monitor and spray crops. 

 

A similar number also supports the use of innovations such as unmanned aerial vehicles to improve crop security and yields while only one in five object to the use of self-driving tractors on farms. 

Read More

Agrichemical Political Power in America and Europe

Evaggelos Vallianatos
greenmedinfo.com 

In November 2014, an open letter signed by about 57 million Americans reached European politicians urging them not to follow America’s genetic engineering path in food and agriculture. Don’t use genetic engineering to modify your crops, the letter said, because GM crops have served us pretty badly here in America. We are convinced the genetic modification of crops is a hazardous and failing technology. 

Genetic engineering for the hegemony of the world

Studies show that animals fed GM foods and / or the weed killer glyphosate become ill from damaged liver, kidneys, gut tissues and gut flora. These animals also suffer from immune system disruption, reproductive abnormalities and tumors. Do we want to eat this kind of food?

With this unsettling evidence from scientific studies, you would think, the letter said, the regulators of genetic engineering in America (Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Agriculture) would be alarmed and ban any further fiddling with the nation’s food. On the contrary, these government regulators and the industry justify the modification of crops from studies funded by the biotech industry.

The letter from America went beyond warning that GM foods were not safe. It concluded that GM foods were much more than the application of genetics on food. Modifying crops was intensifying the biocidal effects of industrialized agriculture. It triggered the radical remaking of farming into a perpetual cash cow for agrichemical corporations. GM food was part of a strategy of corporate hegemony over farmers, food and the world.

The open letter put it this way:

Through our experience we have come to understand that the genetic engineering of food has never really been about public good, or feeding the hungry, or supporting our farmers. Nor is it about consumer choice. Instead it is about private, corporate control of the food system. Americans are reaping the detrimental impacts of this risky and unproven agricultural technology. EU [European Union] countries should take note: there are no benefits from GM crops great enough to offset these impacts [on human health and the environment]. Officials who continue to ignore this fact are guilty of gross dereliction of duty.

I observed the regulatory origins of this technology. It happened in the 1990s under the supervision of the Clinton administration.

EPA alone had a Biopesticides Division of about eighty scientists working feverishly on behalf of the biotech and agrichemical companies. Indeed, it was pesticide executives that invented agricultural genetic engineering. This was their scheme of extending the life of their best-selling chemicals, especially weed killers like glyphosate and 2,4-D. Naturally, duping and addicting farmers to the genetic modification of crops complemented the global ambition of giant corporations for the control of the world’s food.

Read more

5 Biotech Products U.S. Regulators Aren’t Ready For

MIT Technology Review

Emily Mullin

New techniques being used to produce our food or shape the environment raise regulatory questions.

Lab-made meat. Hornless cattle. Designer bacteria. Dozens of futuristic-sounding products are being developed using new tools like CRISPR and synthetic biology. As companies seek to commercialize more of these products, one big question lingers: Who will regulate them?

A new report issued by the National Academy of Sciences says U.S. regulatory agencies need to prepare for new plants, animals, and microbes that will be hitting the market in the next five to 10 years. The new products, the report says, could overwhelm regulatory agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration.

“All of these products have the potential to be beneficial, but the question to me is, how do they compare to the alternative?” says Jennifer Kuzma, co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences committee that prepared the report.

Here are some products scientists are already working on that U.S. regulatory agencies aren’t ready for.

Read more

While You Were Distracted By The US Election, The Senate Outlawed GMO Labeling Nationwide

True Activist

 

While attention was diverted to the US election for much of this year, the Senate quietly made null and void state laws that require that GMO foods be labeled.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are a concern for a number of reasons. When consumed, GMOs have been shown to cause gastrointestinal problems, increase cancer risk, and even silence human genes, not to mention their harmful effects on the environment and endangered species such as bees. Within the US, there is also a dearth of safety testing as most tests that show that GMOs are “safe” are short-term studies, lasting only a matter of months. Longer-term studies, even those conducted for just a few months longer than industry-funded studies, have found that the consumption of GMOs causes serious problems, such as an increase in tumor risk. For those US consumers who are rightly concerned about the presence of GMOs in their food, mandatory GMO labeling is one solution that gives consumers the right to know what is in their food while not affecting the GMO food purchases of those who support biotechnology. A handful of US states have successfully passed GMO labeling laws such as Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont. Similar initiatives in other states, like California, only failed due to the massive amounts of money funneled to the opposition by Industrial Agriculture and Food companies as well as the corporations who create GMO seeds and associated agrochemicals, such as Monsanto.

Read more

Big Biotech’s big lie: National sciences group concludes GMOs do not increase crop production

Amy Goodrich
Natural News

Over the years, genetically modified crops have been a controversial topic of intense global debate. While proponents claim that GMOs are safe and needed to feed our burgeoning population, health and environmental groups are concerned about the lack of long-term testing on the impact of GMOs on the environment and human health.

Recently, the National Research Council, the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), released a highly influential and comprehensive report, Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects, on the effects of genetically engineered crops.

A panel of experts spent two years producing a 400-page report, which is one of the most extensive reviews of genetically modified crops ever published. They pooled data from more than 1,000 existing studies on genetically modified crops. They interviewed 80 witnesses, and analyzed more than 700 comments submitted by the public.

The study committee concluded that genetically modified crops available to date are safe for human consumption and the environment. However, they note that the prevalence of herbicide-resistant crops has led to an increase in herbicide use and herbicide-resistant weeds.

Furthermore, they found that while GMOs may help farmers economically, they do not see the significant increase in yield promised by proponents that see GMOs as the best way to avoid world hunger.

The report comes at a critical time, as America and Europe are reassessing the place of GMOs in our food system. According to a Pew poll, more than half of Americans (57 percent) believe that GMOs are unsafe and should be labeled, while proponents say they don’t cause any harm and will help farmers meet the growing demand for food.

Read more

Countering Pro-GMO Deceptions and Falsehoods. Genetically Engineered Crops are not Safe

Colin Todhunter 
Global Research

In his recent piece for The Times newspaper in the UK, Viscount Matt Ridley argues that a new report from the American National Academies of Sciences (NAS) leaves no room for doubt that genetically engineered crops are as safe or safer, and are certainly better for the environment, than conventionally bred crops.

Ridley adheres to the belief that GM technology reduces insecticide use and speculates that future GM crops will be even safer, better for the environment and better for human health. He says that it is a disgrace that Greenpeace still campaigns against Golden Rice, a vitamin-enhanced variety that its backers claim could save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.

According to Ridley, opposition from rich westerners adds to the cost of bringing such crops to the market, which he argues restricts the spread of GM technology.

In discussing the labelling of GM food in the US, Ridley argues this leaves consumers with the impression that there is something wrong. He argues that the recent NAS report makes the point that genetic engineering is a method, not a category of crop, and it makes no sense to single it out for special labelling because regulation should be based on traits, not techniques. Ridley implies, therefore, that GM is no different from food that is boiled or roasted as its actual content remains unaffected.

Ridley finishes by saying the NAS report points out that “emerging genetic technologies have blurred the distinction between genetic engineering and conventional plant breeding to the point where regulatory systems based on process are technically difficult to defend.”

With a good dose of industry-inspired PR flurry, he concludes that because gene editing in particular will soon allow scientists to improve crops in ways that have none of the even theoretical risks that critics highlight, if Europe does not embrace biotech plants now, its agriculture will wilt.

Unfortunately, for readers of The Times, Ridley’s piece is the usual concoction of misrepresentations, falsehoods and blunders we have come to expect of pro-GMO puff pieces that rely on flawed sources and reports.

His major blunder is to have accepted at face value the NAS report.

Read more

From The Green Revolution To GMOs: Living In The Shadow Of Global Agribusiness

Colin Todhunter 
True Publica

What can we do about the powerful transnational agribusiness companies that have captured or at the very least heavily influence regulatory bodies, research institutes, trade agreements and governments? How can we assess the safety and efficacy of GMOs or their other technologies and products when narratives and decision-making processes have become distorted by these companies?

Through the ‘green revolution’ chemical-intensive model of agriculture these corporations and their powerful backers promoted and instituted, they have been able to determine what seeds are to be used by farmers, what is to be grown and what inputs are to be applied. This, in turn, has adversely effected the nutritional content of food, led to the over-exploitation of water and diminished drought resistance, degraded soil, undermined biodiversity, polluted the environment, destroyed farmers’ livelihoods and so much more: with 60 years’ farming experience behind him, Bhaskar Save outlined many of these impacts in his open letter to Indian officials some years back.

These powerful corporations increasingly hold sway over a globalised system of food and agriculture from seed to plate. And with major mergers within the agribusiness sector in the pipeline, power will be further consolidated and the situation is likely to worsen. While scientific innovation has a role to play in improving agriculture, the narrative about farming has been shaped to benefit the interests of this handful of wealthy, politically influential corporations whereby commercial interest trumps any notion of the public good.

The green revolution has proved to be disastrous in many areas (for example, see this, this and this). If the technology involved had been used more judiciously and genuinely in the public interest – and had not been married to geopolitical interestsresulting in the creation of food deficit regions or instituted for the commercial gain of corporations – would we not now be in a better position? And would organic farming and agroecology have received greater attention and investment and be playing a much greater role (as research shows they should), even a dominant one, in agriculture?

Read more


See also:  World State Policies IX: Food as a Weapon and GM Crops Unleashed

Dr. Vandana Shiva: Seeds of suicide

Dr. Vandana Shiva
deccanchronicle.com

May 22 has been declared International Biodiversity Day by the UN. It gives us an opportunity to become aware of the rich biodiversity that has been evolved by our farmers. It also provides an opportunity to acknowledge the threats to our biodiversity from IPR monopolies.

Just as our Vedas and Upanishads have no individual authors, our rich biodiversity, including seeds, have been evolved cumulatively. I recently joined tribals who evolved thousands of rice varieties for their festival of "Akti". Akti is a celebration of the relationship of the seed and the soil, and the community.

In addition to learning about seeds from women and peasants, I had the honour to participate and contribute to international and national laws on biodiversity. I worked closely with our government in the run-up to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, when the UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) was adopted. Three key commitments in the CBD are protection of the sovereign rights of countries to their biodiversity, the traditional knowledge of communities and biosafety in the context of genetically-modified foods.

The UN appointed me on the expert panel for the framework for the biosafety protocol, now adopted as the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety. I was appointed a member of the expert group to draft the National Biodiversity Act, as well as the Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act. We ensured that farmers rights are recognized in our laws. It says:

"A farmer shall be deemed to be entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce, including seed of a variety protected under this act, in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this act"

Patents on seeds are unjust. A patent or any intellectual property right is a monopoly granted by society in exchange for benefits. But society has no benefit in toxic, non-renewable seeds. We are losing biodiversity, we are losing nutrition, and quality of our food. Above all, we are losing our fundamental freedom to decide what seeds we will sow.

Seed as a common good has become a commodity of private companies. Unless protected and put back in the hands of our farmers, it is at risk of being lost forever. 

Read more

Epicyte: Contraceptive Corn and Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs (Full Length) HD

Monsanto suffers major defeat as majority of EU states say 'No to GMO'

F. William Engdahl
New Eastern Outlook

Monsanto and the GMO agribusiness cartel have suffered a major new defeat as two-thirds of the 28 EU member states have opted for a full ban on GMO crops according to the terms of new Brussels rules allowing national decision on the toxic agro-technology. The bans across the EU greatly expand the EU acreage off-limits to GMO from the previous somewhat chaotic EU procedures.

By the October 3 deadline, the EU Commission has announced that 19 of the 28 EU member countries have filed for a full "opt-out" or ban on GMO commercial crops in their countries. Other states can still file no GMO opt-outs after October 3 on certain grounds.

The states saying fully No to GMO now include Germany (except for limited research only, not commercial planting), and France. France continues its previous ban, including for Monsanto MON810 GMO maize, the only GMO crop presently in commercial cultivation in the EU, , mainly in Spain and Portugal. In addition to Germany and France, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, and Slovenia all now have full GMO bans.

As wel there are regional bans within the UK of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a major portion of the best UK agricultural land. The UK Cameron government however remains pro-GMO. In Belgium, the southern part, Wallonia, adjacent to France and Luxemburg, also opted to ban GMO. The decision of Ireland, which had a total ban on GMO in 2009, is at this point unclear.

Read more

15 Million Americans Suffer from Food Allergies: Could GMOs be to Blame?

Christina Sarich
Natural Society

Food allergies already affect more than 15 million Americans while things like gluten sensitivity hits a whopping 18 million individuals. What’s more, the cost for treating children’s food allergies is expected to rise to $25 billion per year. But biotech companies like Monsanto continue to claim they have no culpability.

Why are food allergies on the rise? Well let’s look at some obvious facts: Proteins in food are what most commonly cause allergic reactions, and when proteins are gene-spliced, the body has a harder time digesting them. We are eating gene-edited proteins in today’s diet that humans have never eaten before, and most of them have never been tested for safety.

• You can determine for yourself if this is coincidence or pre-meditated creation, but some of the most common food allergies are to soy, tree nuts, wheat, shellfish, peanuts, eggs, milk, and fish. Many of the items on this list have been genetically modified, or they hardly resemble their original state after corporate farming got their hands on them, as in the case of wheat.

Read More  

Hundreds Of Scientists Warn: No Consensus On Safety Of Genetically Modified Crops

Mint Press News

A coalition of scientists warns there is no consensus on the safety of genetically-modified organisms, and more long-term research must be done on individual modified crops. Their message stands in sharp contrast to the idea, popular in the mainstream media, that GMO safety is universally accepted by science.

“Fears, Not Facts, Support G.M.O.-Free Food,” reads the headline of an editorial by Jane E. Brody, published Monday in The New York Times. Brody argues that science supports the use of modern genetically-engineered plants, and that opponents are working from a place of emotion, not fact. “The anti-G.M.O. movement, I’m afraid, risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” argues Brody.

Similarly, Steven Savage, writing last month for Forbes, called the anti-GMO movement “superstition.” “Although all of the major scientific bodies around the world have affirmed the safety of ‘GMO crops,’ the fear-based messaging has worked,” he wrote.

[...]

The authors argue that the idea of universal consensus on the safety of GMO crops is a myth created by a small group of “stakeholders,” such as scientists funded by the agribusiness industry, claiming there’s been “a concerted effort by genetically modified (GM) seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists to construct claims that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is ‘over.’”

Read more

GMO Imports Causing Unapproved “Mystery GMO Plants” to Invade Ecosystems

Mike Barrett
Natural Society

Emerging as the world’s second largest importer of GMO crops, South Korea seems to be a big believer in feeding its citizens GMOs. Oddly enough, though, the country already has a government ban on their cultivation – likely as a means to protect its land from potential GMO dangers while still ‘benefiting’ from GMO foods. But despite an in-house ban and only accepting imports, GMO mystery plants have been taking root all over the country – providing hard evidence that GMO contamination is real and that even importing GMOs can disrupt a local ecosystem.

A National Institute of Ecology (NIE) monitoring report on the effects GMOs have on the natural environment showed GM corn and cotton discoveries across the country in 2013. Corn was found in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province; Gimje, North Jeolla Province; and Gimhae, South Gyeongsang Province. Cotton was found in no fewer than fifteen locations.

Read more

Bowing to Monsanto, USDA Approves New GMO Soy and Cotton Crops

Common Dreams

‘This continues the disturbing trend of more herbicide-tolerant crop approvals taking place under President Obama’s watch.’ — Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water 

The United States Department of Agriculture on Thursday approved Monsanto's controversial herbicide-resistant genetically modified strains of soybean and cotton, in a move that critics say is a bow to the powerful biotechnology industry, at the expense of human and environmental health. 

The green-light is "simply the latest example of USDA’s allegiance to the biotechnology industry and dependence upon chemical solutions," Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter declared in a press statement. "This continues the disturbing trend of more herbicide-tolerant crop approvals taking place under President Obama’s watch."

Dr. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman of the Pesticide Action Network echoed Hauter's concerns, calling the new genetically modified crops "the latest in a slew of bad ideas" and a sign of the USDA's "allegiance to the largest pesticide corporations."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) on Thursday granted "nonregulated status for Monsanto Company’s (Monsanto) soybeans and cotton that are resistant to certain herbicides, including one known as dicamba." The biotechnology giant still awaits the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of the new herbicide, which contains both dicamba and glyphosate, designed to accompany the resistant strain.

Read more

Monsanto/Bayer's GM Plants Contaminate Europe Despite Ban

Sayer Ji 
Activist Post

New evidence reveals that despite a ban on cultivation of GM rapeseed in Europe, Monsanto and Bayer's plants are now freely growing there.

A new study published in PLoS titled, "Unexpected Diversity of Feral Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus L.) Despite a Cultivation and Import Ban in Switzerland," is believed to be the first report of its kind showing that despite a cultivation and seed import ban of genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape in Switzerland, Monsanto and Bayer's GM plants have been introduced into the environment there, confirming fears that once the GM genie has been let out of the bottle it cannot be put back. 

Read more

Scientific basis for GMO crops is false

Jon Rappoport 
Activist Post

Unpredictable effects. Unknown outcomes. Potential health consequences. Uncertain gene technology.

These aren’t phrases biotech giants like to hear.

They prefer:

“One gene produces one protein.”

“Each gene has a specific function.”

This is the basis for the modern biotech industry, and it applies most definitely to GMO crops.

And it is false.

So for example, when Monsanto says the genes they insert in plants only serve to protect the plants from the herbicide Roundup and have no other function, they’re making it up.
 
For a brief summary of the situation, see Denise Caruso’s NY Times piece, “A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech,” July 1, 2007.

Caruso reports on the findings of an “exhaustive four-year effort…organized by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80 organizations around the world.”

“…genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood.” 


Read more

Michelle Obama teaming up with Monsanto to promote children’s food

Daily Leak

The popular agriculture company Monsanto is partnering with First Lady Michelle Obama to promote nutritional foods for kids. According to reports from the Associated Press, Monsanto will spend $50 million over five years on a campaign to market ‘healthy’ genetically modified food to children. The agrochemical company will also bring its food offerings for kids in line with the new federal standards for labeling and nutrition.

Obama announced her intentions in front of crates of fresh produce on Thursday. “When I see a company like Monsanto launch an initiative like this, I feel more hopeful than ever before,” said the First Lady. “We can improve how we make and sell food in this country.”

“It’s a natural extension of what we do,” Monsanto vice president, Michael Stern, told the AP in reference to the new partnership with the first lady.

Read more