Thanks, puravida, for all your input! :) More on GMO wheat exports. The momentum is picking up. BURN IT ALL!!!!

Taken from:
https://occupymonsanto360.org/blog/2013/ ... trollable/

GE Wheat Controversy: Further Proof GE Crops are Uncontrollable

[FONT=Segoe UI]by Janet Cotter and Eric Darier of [/FONT]Greenpeace

[FONT=Segoe UI]Shockwaves are being felt across the world’s wheat markets following the first-ever discovery of unauthorized genetically engineered (GE) wheat growing on a U.S. farm—a development that gives further proof that GE crops cannot be controlled.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]The discovery of Monsanto‘s GE wheat, confirmed by U.S. authorities, sparked alarm among Washington D.C.’s trading nations, pushed wheat prices lower and is threatening U.S. exports. It should not be seen, however, as totally unexpected.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]The GE wheat is a herbicide tolerant wheat (probably MON 71800) that Monsanto tested in fields across 16 states between 1998 and 2005. The wheat was never authorized and never commercialized because Monsanto withdrew its application in May 2004 following massive global opposition from farmers, consumers and environmentalists.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]So what happened between the last field tests in 2005 and the announcement of a contamination in Oregon eight years later? How did it get there? Who is responsible? Who will pay for the decontamination? Is the contamination limited to one farmer’s field in Oregon or is it only the tip of the iceberg of a wider problem? Will Canada, where the GE wheat was also tested, be affected by the contamination?

[FONT=Segoe UI]


[FONT=Segoe UI]An activist helps quarantine a government-run farm in Canada to expose the risks of Monsanto’s genetically engineered wheat.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]About 90 percent of Oregon wheat production is exported mainly to Asian countries. This contamination will hit commodity trade as more Asian governments start testing for GE contamination and require guarantees from the U.S. (and possibly from Canada) that wheat imports are not contaminated with this GE wheat. According to figures from the U.S. Wheat Associates, out of the 11.4 million tons of wheat exported by Oregon, 50 percent is sold to East Asia (China, Japan and South Korea), 28 percent to South East Asia, nine percent to Latin America and nine percent to the Middle East.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]Greenpeace and other nongovernmental organizations have been warning about contamination of our food and the environment from GE crops for several years. GE contamination threatens farmers’ incomes and consumer choice. It can threaten the environment and pose risks to human health.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]There have been already too many incidents of contamination in the past and GE contamination is simply not worth the risk.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]U.S. authorities claim that this GE wheat is “safe” based on what Monsanto told them; that “this wheat variety is not materially different in composition, safety or any other relevant parameter from wheat now grown, marketed and consumed.” But why should they trust Monsanto, which has great commercial interests at stake, to provide rigorous and impartial scientific data on its own product? It looks like a case of the fox guarding the hen house.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]The developers of GE wheat and government authorities have repeatedly said that GE wheat will not contaminate conventional or organic wheat because it is predominantly self-pollinating—the pollen does not spread very far, unlike cross-pollinating crops such as maize and oilseed rape.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]Despite this, contamination from GE wheat has happened. Like other GE contamination, the route of contamination isn’t clear. For example, Bayer said the massive contamination of U.S. rice in 2006 with an unapproved, experimental variety of rice called LL601 was an “act of God.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]Early this year the European Environmental Agency (EAA) published a report, Late lessons from Early Warnings: Science, Precaution, Innovation, that documented “how damaging and costly the misuse or neglect of the precautionary principle can be.” The EEA reviewed extensively the problems with GE crops as obstacles to and a distraction from ecological farming solutions.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]The Monsanto GE wheat contamination shows again that governments and industry measures to prevent contamination are failing. The only permanent solution is to immediately ban the field testing of GE crops.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]More fundamentally, the world urgently needs to switch to ecological farming and get out of the chemical heavy, GE industrial agriculture treadmill and the environmental risks it represents.[/FONT]


I know that many already know this...

“Chickens are often GENETICALLY MODIFIED with hormones, carcinogens, GMOs, corn pills, arsenic and drugs so they become LARGER FASTER and as a result they often CRIPPLE under their own weight and are prone to over-heating and heart failure”

“These chickens suffer with ammonia, bronchitis, weakened immune system, failed organs or respiratory problems during their short lives of 6 weeks until they get slaughtered”

“One out of three children born after the year 2000 is OBESE. Consuming all these hormones, drugs, antibiotics, GMOs and carcinogens has helped contribute to chronic diseases including obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes”.

[video=youtube;OpvPu3hkDb8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... pvPu3hkDb8[/video]

https://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Tell_K ... _organisms

''Please support this petition: Kickstarter is currently listing a project by 3 biohackers to make glowing plants through the controversial techniques of Synthetic Biology - an extreme form of genetic engineering The technology is so new that no one is regulating it yet. The biohackers will send 100 seeds of their bioengineered plants to people who donate more than $40. Right now that means more than 600,000 modified plant seeds will be shipped in an unregulated, uncontrolled and unmonitored experiment -the first ever deliberate release of synthetic biology organisms. The project would also set a dangerous precedent that could see Kickstarter becoming a one-stop shop for biotech companies wanting to get risky living organisms out into nature. Kickstarter already sets[FONT=inherit] out rules blocking risky products like weapons and even benign products like sunglasses. It’s time to add bioengineered lifeforms to the list of things prohibited by Kickstarter's ethical guidelines.''[/FONT]

Patricia, first and foremost many thanks for all your excellent posts!! And thank you too, puravida!!

By the way, I felt inclined to comment some of Shekinah's rants because I don't want to let them pass unchallenged -- but this would cause a considerable thread drift, therefore I didn't do it. His prime motive is obviously to disrupt this thread as much as possible.

[QUOTE=Patricia1970;1036895]Shekinah and Sentienne: Please take the minor discussion of 'Lightworkers' off to another thread, as this is going off topic. This thread is purely about GMOs in food and the biotech industry.[/QUOTE]


No problem Zaik, and thank you for your support. :) Knowledge is power, and this is far too important subject matter to allow to allow it to 'tail off.' This is absolutely one of the most severe threats to the planet, and people need to wake up to this, get informed and do something about it, even if it means 'only' signing petitions.

Taken from: https://gmofreect.org/breaking-news-sena ... ling-bill/

Breaking News: Senate Amends and Passes a Strong GMO Labeling Bill

[FONT=verdana]We are thrilled to tell you that a short while ago, the Senate amended and voted on HB 6527, the GMO labeling bill voted on by the House last Thursday. After several days of intense negotiation between the Senate, the House, and the Governor’s office, a compromise was reached this afternoon. All four leaders of the House and Senate, Senator Williams, Senator McKinney, Representative Sharkey, and Representative Cafero, are all sponsors of the amended bill.

Today’s GMO labeling agreement is historic and we are proud to have played a role in its development. YOU should all be proud. Connecticut will now set the standard for states around the country to follow. We are grateful to all who worked to make this possible. Thank you to all our champions in the House and the Senate.

The amended version of the bill is without the exemption for farmers grossing less than 1.5 million dollars, which undermined the entire intent of the bill. However, there is a more reasonable trigger clause included. The bill will go into effect when “Four states, not including this state, enact a mandatory labeling law for genetically-engineered foods that is consistent with the provisions of this subsection, provided one such state borders Connecticut; and (2) the aggregate population of such states located in the northeast region of the United States that have enacted a mandatory labeling law for genetically-engineered foods that is consistent with this subsection exceed twenty million based on 2010 census figures.” While we believe we have a right to know what is in our food today, we are satisfied that the language of the GMO labeling bill will give CT consumers transparency in labeling that will allow them to make informed decisions once the law is triggered.

This agreement will provide momentum for our fellow activists throughout the country as they fight to know what is in the food they feed their families. We are confident that our counterparts throughout the country and the northeast will accomplish what we have in Connecticut. We pledge our support to them. We urge lawmakers across the country to follow Connecticut’s lead and give their citizens the right to know.
We just took on the most powerful industry on the globe and the power of the people triumphed. Congratulations to each and every one you. The House will be voting on the bill after the weekend.

If you would like to read the new version of the bill, click here https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/lcoamd/2013L ... 00-AMD.htm.[/FONT]

Taken from: https://occupymonsanto360.org/blog/2013/ ... glomerate/


[FONT=Segoe UI]By [email protected] [FONT=Segoe UI]|[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]June 1, 2013[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana]Monsanto seems intent on taking over the food supply of the entire world. Their sterile, toxic seeds are in every corner of the globe. Hungary recently made headlines for burning 1000 acres of fields of GMO crops to the ground. Dozens of nations have banned, or at the very least, regulated, GMO crops and products. The heat is on the monolithic seed corporation, and it’s time to turn the temperature up even more in North America. The federal government has made no secret of their support of Monsanto, so it’s up to us, the consumers, to starve them out.

The best way to do that, according to the founder of Eat Local Grown, Rick Davis, is to “Starve Monsanto, feed a farmer.”
Every dollar we put into the pockets of small farmers is a dollar that Monsanto doesn’t receive. By cutting off the funding for Monsanto through consumer choices, we can starve this beast out.
Davis is passionate about the place of farmer’s markets in this checkout counter revolution:
Money is all that matters. So let’s use our money more wisely to get the changes we want. First step- stop buying GMO and conventionally grown food. Move those dollars to supporting local sustainable farmers!

I realize that’s difficult and impossible for many. But if we had a shift of just 10% of peoples shopping income going to Farmers Markets it would make a HUGE difference. The sad reality is that most small family farms are required to have at least one family member work outside of the farm just to make ends meet. It’s not because they don’t do a good job growing healthy food, it’s because there’s just not enough awareness of the benefits (nutrition, helping the environment, building community, etc).

[FONT=verdana]Every bite of food that you feed your family is a vote, either for Monsanto and their GMOs, or against them. This means that every single one of us can effect the necessary change by voting with our forks and wallets.
We can all take steps to grow at least some of the food that we consume, through traditional gardens, containers on the patio or balcony, or even a sunny window. But for city dwellers or those who live in an area otherwise not conducive to farming, it isn’t feasible to think that they can grow every single bite that they eat. Not to worry, though, because activism is as easy as heading to your local farmer’s market instead of the grocery store. (You can find farmer’s markets in your area HERE.)

Here are 10 ways to starve a multi-national GMO conglomerate even when you don’t have room to farm – and the best news of all is that ANYONE can get started as soon as lunch time!

  1. [FONT=verdana]Stop shopping at grocery stores. With farmer’s markets, roadside stands in the country, vegetable gardens,privately owned butcher shops, and mail order sources for bulk purchases of organic grains, there is no reason you need to ever set foot in another chilly, fluorescent-lit, chemical warfare zone again[/FONT]
  2. [FONT=verdana]Eat seasonally. Seasonal eating has a host of benefits. It’s healthier, it’s cheaper, and it’s far easier to find in-season foods locally grown.[/FONT]
  3. [FONT=verdana]Join a CSA. CSA stands for Community Supported Agriculture. Basically when you join a CSA, you are buying shares in the harvest. This is a great way to support local farmers. You pay in advance and then as the harvest comes in, it is divided among shareholders. Each CSA is different – some divvy up only produce, while others share eggs and dairy products as well.[/FONT]
  4. [FONT=verdana]Make the farmer’s market a weekly destination. Grab the kids and some reusable bags and head out to your local farmer’s market. Not only can you shop for vibrant, fresh-picked fruits and veggies, but many markets also offer home-baked goods, jams and jellies, and local meats. Be sure that you are buying directly from farmers, though. Some vendors buy from the same markets that the grocery stores do, which defeats the whole purpose. Talk to the vendor and learn about the origin of the offerings – you just may strike up a wonderful friendship![/FONT]
  5. [FONT=verdana]Buy directly from the farm. If you live in a more rural area, shopping locally can be as easy as visiting a neighboring farm. Some set up roadside stands, others rely on the honor system, and others have small shops with their freshly harvested offerings.[/FONT]
  6. [FONT=verdana]Visit a pick-your-own farm. A great outing for the whole family is a pick-your-own farm. Even better, the price for fresh berries or apples is often lower when you provide your own labor. A morning spent in the field picking strawberries is both educational and a fun way to bond with your children. You can find a PYO farm in your areaHERE.[/FONT]
  7. [FONT=verdana]Learn to preserve food. Many of us live in a climate doesn’t allow for fresh harvests year-round. The good news is, you can acquire fresh produce in large quantities (like bushel baskets) for a far better price than a weekly supply. Canning, freezing, and dehydrating are three greatways to preservethat fresh picked goodness to enjoy in the middle of winter, while still avoiding the grocery store and it’s Monsanto-filled shelves.[/FONT]
  8. [FONT=verdana]Join a food co-op. According to Localharvest.org, “Food cooperatives are worker or customer owned businesses that provide grocery items of the highest quality and best value to their members. Coops can take the shape of retail stores or buying clubs. All food coops are committed to consumer education, product quality, and member control, and usually support their local communities by selling produce grown locally by family farms.” Food co-ops can be foundHERE andHERE.[/FONT]
  9. [FONT=verdana]Support restaurants that buy locally. The locavore movement is catching on. If you choose to go out to dinner, opt for restaurants that have seasonal menus based on local harvests. You can find a list of such eateries HERE.[/FONT]
  10. [FONT=verdana]Educate friends, family, and the local community. Extend the activism beyond your own kitchen by helping to promote the local options. Lots of people have no idea what to do with swiss chard or rutabagas. Volunteer to teach a cooking class that focuses on seasonal foods. Write up flyers to be inserted with co-op or CSA baskets with instructions on how to prepare that months’ harvest. Submit seasonal recipes to your local paper. Educate, educate, educate, on the benefits and importance of locally grown, non-GMO food.[/FONT]
Grass roots activism like Occupy Monsanto and the March Against Monsanto have built a tidal wave of momentum against the genetically modified ingredients contaminating our supplies. We, everyday, ordinary people, can keep the movement going by remembering that the real votes are counted at the cash register.

Taken from: https://wewillblowyourmind.blogspot.co.u ... l-gmo.html

800 Scientists Demand Global GMO “Experiment” End

Did you hear about the 800 esteemed scientists who came together and demanded the production of genetically modified crops and products be stopped? Scientists who called on world powers to re-evaluate the future of agriculture and seek sustainability rather than corporate profits? Don’t be surprised if you haven’t, as the mainstream media won’t touch this one.

[FONT=Arial]Eight-hundred scientists did make such a demand. They made it first over a decade ago and they have updated it over the years, adding signatures and release dates. Still global powers have all but ignored their calls.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]The Institute of Science in Society is a non-profit group of scientists from around the world, dedicated to bringing an end to what they refer to as the “dangerous GMO “experiment. In their open letter to the world, they have highlighted why governments need to stop genetically modified crops now – before there are irreversible effects on the health of the people and the health of the earth at large.[/FONT]

The Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments calls for “the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years.”
[FONT=Arial]They also want patents on organisms, cell lines, and living things revoked and banned. Such patents (a sort of corporate version of “playing God,”) “threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]This would be bad news for Monsanto following the recent Supreme Court decision that they have the ‘right’ to patent life.
[FONT=Arial]Scientists Speaking Out
[FONT=Arial]In the beginning, after its first draft in 1999, the letter had just over 300 signatures. Since then, it’s grown significantly. At the writing of this article, the document has 828 signatures representing 84 different countries.
[FONT=Arial]While we are told by Monsanto and the FDA that GMOs are nothing to worry about and instead safe tools for the future of agriculture, a growing number of esteemed scientists seem to disagree. So, who’s listening?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]The letter has been presented to numerous governments and organizations, including the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development, the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Trade Organization, and yes, even the U.S. Congress. The letter has been shared at these venues, but it doesn’t seem like anyone was listening.
[FONT=Arial]The populous has to dig for information like this. We have to seek out the news sources willing to cover it, because we won’t hear about this letter on the nightly news or through a governmental agency. No, the U.S. government wants you to fear what they want you to fear (“terror” and crime, for instance), but they certainly don’t want you to fear the information and the food they are putting on your table. Or the GMOs they are funding with your taxpayer dime.[/FONT]

Copied from Occupy Monsanto for those in the USA:

PLEASE CALL AND LEAVE A VOICEMAIL for the 10 members of the committee who have not yet co-sponsored the bill and ask them to cosponsor and support it. Flooding them with calls tomorrow morning just before the vote is also very helpful. I did this and it took only 10 minutes.

Assembly member Abbate: 518-455-3053
Assembly member Buchwald: 518-455-5397
Assembly member Camara: 518-455-5262
Assembly member Gabryszak: 518-455-5921
Assembly member Hennessey: 518-455-4901
Assembly member McKevitt: 518-455-5341
Assembly member Nojay: 518-455-5662
Assembly member Quart: 518-455-4794
Assembly member Simanowitz: 518-455-4404
Assembly member Skoufis: 518-455-5441



Fantastic news - as long as it is not a ruse to distract us! :)

Taken from: https://www.dw.de/monsanto-gives-up-figh ... a-16851701

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]


[FONT=verdana]Monsanto gives up fight for GM plants in Europe

[/FONT][FONT=verdana]The world's largest producer of seeds, Monsanto, has apparently given up on attempts to spread its genetically modified plant varieties in Europe. A German media report said the firm would end all lobbying for approval.
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=verdana]The world's largest producer of seeds, Monsanto, has apparently given up on attempts to spread its genetically modified plant varieties in Europe. A German media report said the firm would end all lobbying for approval.
The German newspaper "taz" reported Friday that US agriculture behemoth Monsanto had dropped any plans to have farmers grow its genetically modified (GM) plant varieties in Europe.

Monsanto Europe spokesman Brandon Mitchener was quoted as saying the company would no longer engage in any lobbying for such plants on the continent, adding that at the moment the firm was unwilling to apply for approval of any GM plants.

Saying 'No' to genetically modified food

All over the world, protesters have been rallying against genetically modified food - and in particular, against seed giant Monsanto. (28.05.2013)

Monsanto said its decision was partly based on low demand from European farmers. "We've understood that such plants don't have any broad acceptance in European societies," Monsanto Germany spokeswoman Ursula Lüttmer-Ouazane commented. "We haven't been bale to make any progress over the years, and it's counter-productive to tilt against windmills," she added.

Public resistance

The German Agriculture Ministry said Monsanto's move was a corporate decision and would not comment further. But it added it was no secret the ministry had been highly critical of gene modification technologies.

"The promises of GM industry have not come true for European agriculture, nor have they for the agriculture in developing and emerging economies," the ministry said in a statement.

In Germany, the protest movement against GM plants has been particularly strong for years. Vociferous rallying prompted the government in 2009 to prohibit the growing of Monsanto's MON810 GM maize variety.
Rivals of the US company, such as Bayer CropScience, BASF and Syngenta had largely withdrawn from the German market because of large-scale public opposition, the "taz" report claimed.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]


Taken from: https://www.undergroundhealth.com/gmo-fo ... an-damage/

[h=1]New Studies Suggest Link Between GMO Foods and Serious Organ Damage[/h]May 19, 2013 at 9:55 am

​A recent report published in the March 1, 2013 issue of Environmental Sciences Europe has revealed a connection between genetically modified foods and significant risk of developing organ disruptions, particularly in the liver and kidneys.

The research was conducted by a team of scientists including Gilles-Eric Séralini, professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen in France. Séralini and his team reviewed 19 animal based studies, some of which showed that consuming genetically modified corn or soybeans led to the organ disruptions, with male kidneys responding the worst.

A number of male rats who were fed Monsanto’s MON863 corn developed smaller kidneys with significant inflammation among other markers of disruptive kidney filtration and function problems. Some animals experienced changes in metabolic rates in the liver. Female genital cancers increased in the second generation, and some of the animals who were fed genetically modified organisms had altered body weights in at least one gender, which is considered to be a very strong predictor of side effects displaying in various organs related to toxins in the diet.

According to Jeffrey Smith, author of “Seeds of Deception,” Séralini’s study falls short in being able to determine whether any of the particular problems are a result of the pesticides applied directly to the GM crops, or as a result of the engineered seeds themselves, which causes genetic changes to the plants’ DNA.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture suggests that at least 70 percent of processed foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain genetically modified ingredients. 93 percent of soy, 86 percent of corn and 93 percent of cotton and canola planted in the U.S. in 2010 were genetically engineered.

Taken from: https://www.organicconsumers.org/article ... _27635.cfm

[h=2]We Know Who You Are: 71 Senators Reject States’ Rights to Label GMOs[/h]
  • By Katherine Paul
    Organic Consumers Association, May 30, 2013
On the eve (May 24, 2013) of a worldwide protest against Monsanto, 71 U.S. senators (listed below) voted against an amendment to the Senate version of the 2013 Farm Bill that would have guaranteed states the right to enact mandatory GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling laws.

Seventy-one Senators voted against you, the 90 percent of consumers who have said that you want labels on foods containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.

Seventy-one Senators – including 28 so-called liberal Democrats and 43 Republican so-called defenders of states’ rights - voted against your state’s Constitutional Tenth Amendment right to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and local businesses.

We know who those Senators are. And we plan to make certain that everyone who cares about food safety and food sovereignty knows who they are, too.

We’ll make sure that every consumer, citizen, voter knows that last year Monsanto donated almost $6 million ,more than any other company, to the agriculture lobby. And that almost $1 million of that money went directly to political candidates, including some of the 71 Senators who voted against states’ rights to label GMOs.

And we will make sure that every one of those Senators knows that if they support any amendment or rider to the Farm Bill that would preempt state labeling laws, that if they fight labeling laws in any of their home states, we’ll support efforts to recall them where possible, or oppose them if recall isn’t an option.

The Sanders Amendment: What and Why

The Sanders amendment (S.AMDT.965) was introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt). Co-sponsored by Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the amendment was intended to definitively establish that states have the right to require labeling of GE ingredients.

In fact, states already have the right to enact mandatory GMO labeling laws, just as they’ve passed nearly 200 other state laws governing food safety and agriculture. State GMO labeling, and other food safety and food labeling laws, are guaranteed under the Constitution. Federal law, upheld for decades by federal court legal decisions, allows states to pass laws relating food safety or food labels when the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has no prior regulations or prohibitions in place. There is currently no federal law or FDA regulation on GMO labeling, except for a guidance statement on voluntary labeling, nor is there any federal prohibition on state GMO or other food safety labeling laws.

But with so many states, including Washington, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, and others, threatening to actually pass GMO labeling laws, the biotech industry is fighting back. Realizing that they can’t fight GMO labeling laws in every state, they’re coming after states’ rights.

Sanders’ home state, Vermont, passed H. 112, GMO labeling law, out of the House on May 13. The Senate will take up the bill in in January 2014. If the Vermont legislation is signed into law next year, Sanders anticipates a fight – one that his amendment might have averted.

Last year, when Vermont legislators signaled they might pass a GMO labeling law, Monsanto threatened to sue the state, causing the Governor to back down. That’s when Sanders first introduced his amendment, to the Senate version of the 2012 Farm Bill, where it was quashed by a vote of 26 to 73. (This year’s vote was 27 to 71). The 2012 Farm Bill stalled before it could be finalized, while Congress was distracted by the national elections.

The Corporate Takeover of Local Decision-Making

Arguing against the Sanders Amendment, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), the chair of the Agriculture Committee, said that the amendment “ . . . would interfere with the FDA’s science-based process to determine what food labeling is necessary for consumers.” Stabenow’s statement shows either her ignorance of, or dismissal of, the existing scientific evidence that GE food has been linked to everything from allergies to kidney failure to cancer.

But Stabenow’s real argument was one of efficiency.

“It’s also important to note that around the world now we are seeing genetically modified crops that have the ability to resist crop diseases and improve nutritional content and survive drought conditions in many developing countries. . . We see wonderful work being done by foundations like the Gates Foundation and others, that are using new techniques to be able to feed hungry people.”

Let’s forget for a moment that Stabenow took in $739,926 in campaign contributions from Big Ag in 2012. Or that Bill Gates is a Monsanto shareholder. Or that there’s plenty of evidence refuting the claim that GMO crops can solve world hunger, improve nutrition or survive drought. The focus on efficiency over health and safety, when we’re talking about our food, should be enough to set off alarm bells. Claiming efficiency, whether it’s a valid claim or not, as a reason to trample states’ rights to make their own decisions regarding food and agriculture, should have us thinking “slippery slope.”

In their book, Slow Democracy, Susan Clark and Woden Teachout write:

What we have now is the McDonald’s of democracy. It isn’t necessarily a rapid process, any more than our processed foods – with slaughterhouses, processing plants, intercontinental transportation routes, and months in the freezer – are actually quick. But it’s fast in the sense that fast food is fast: It’s a centralized process based on the premise of efficiency, delivering a simple, easy-to-use product, but one that leaves citizens unnourished and unsatisfied. Like industrial agriculture, this ‘fast democracy’ has encroached on our communities in a silent and invisible way. And Americans, with a deep stake in the quality of these decisions, know we are losing out.”

When 71 Senators ignore 90 percent of their constituents, we are losing out. When 71 Senators ignore the science that says, at the least, GE food should be adequately tested and labeled and at the most, it should be banned, we are losing out. When 71 Senators are willing to trample on the Constitution that guarantees states’ rights to protect the health and safety of their citizens, we are losing out.

It’s time for the 71 Senators who voted against the Sanders Amendment to start voting with the citizens who pay their salaries, not the lobbyists who fill their campaign coffers. If they don’t? It’s time for us to demand that they leave. And vote, or throw, them out if they refuse.

The 71 Senators Who Voted Against Your Right to Know

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cowan (D-MA)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Moran (R-KS)
Nelson (D-FL)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Monsatan deliberately lying through clenched teeth again.

Taken from:

Monsanto can't explain how GMO wheat survived

Published time: June 04, 2013 17:10

[FONT=Segoe UI]
An examiner demonstrates the process of analyzing a genetically modified wheat sample (Reuters / Lee Jae-Won)
Monsanto claims it has no idea how its herbicide-resistant strain of wheat made its way onto an Oregon field. The global biotech giant based in Missouri says it abandoned research on it in 2004 and is mystified by its emergence nearly a decade later.
Monsanto tested the GMO varieties in 17 US states between 1998 and 2004. Although it also tested the GM wheat in Oregon, the company claims it destroyed all of the material upon the conclusion of the program and that it never grew the wheat strain on the farm where it was found last month.
“The company’s internal assessments suggest that neither seed left in the soil nor wheat pollen flow serve as reasonable explanations behind this reported detection,” the biotech giant said in a news release Friday.
The company claims that even if the wheat seed had been left in the ground, it would not have survived longer than one or two years in the soil. Monsanto also states that its seed varieties could not have possibly traveled across the state, since 99 percent of wheat pollen is deposited within 10 meters of the plant.
This report is unusual since our program was discontinued nine years ago, and this is the only report after more than 500 million acres (200 million hectare) of wheat have been grown,” the company said in its statement.

Dmonstrators hold up posters during a proted Monsanto Co. and genetically modified New York May 25, 2013 (Reuters / Eduar
Since May 29, the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has conducted a multi-state investigation to determine how the GM wheat reached the Oregon farm.
A local farmer discovered it after dousing his field with Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” pesticide and realizing that some of the wheat plants were resistant to it. He alerted the USDA, which soon determined that the herbicide-resistant wheat crop was the same variety Monsanto tested nearly a decade ago.
The USDA never approved the strain, and environmentalists have expressed deep concern about potential health risks involving the mysterious GM crop. The finding has already had a detrimental impact on US trade: Japanese authorities last week announced that they would suspend imports of US wheat.
Shortly after the announcement, wheat for July delivery fell by 8.25 cents to $6.945 per bushel on the Chicago Board Trade.

Dad King, man of the Seed Library of Los Angeles, speaks to activists during a protest against agribusiness giant Monsanto Angeles on May 25, 2013 (yn Beck)

And Monsanto’s asserted bewilderment serves as no comfort to those concerned about the presence of unapproved GM crops in the US, particularly foreign importers who fear that the GM variety may have been present in their crop purchases.
A USDA spokeswoman told Reuters on Monday that there are “no indications that there is any GE wheat in commerce.” But if investigators find any more of the unapproved wheat variety growing on US farms, the agriculture industry could take an even harder hit.
Genetically modified wheat has not been approved for commercial growing, and Asian and European buyers have expressed little interest in it, which in large part influenced Monsanto’s decision not to market the GM crop after testing it.


[FONT=Segoe UI]


Taken from: https://www.nationofchange.org/venezuela ... 1370186417

Venezuela Goes for Ban on GM Seeds

[FONT=Arial]Published: Sunday 2 June 2013

[LEFT][FONT=Georgia]The new legislation would protect small and medium producers, favour the use of seeds for the environment and human health, and the creation of an institution working on the topic.

Venezuela is going forward in the defintive elaboration and approval for a law guaranteeing security and sovereignty against the threat of transgenic seeds, said Socialist deputy Alfredo Urena.
Urena said in an interview to Venezolana de Television how important this is to preserve the biological diversity of the nation and food sovereignty, since the transgenic seed market is under the monopoly of a few transationals, such as renowned enterprise MONSANTO.

The new legislation would protect small and medium producers, favour the use of seeds for the environment and human health, and the creation of an institution working on the topic, he said.Urena said the law project - included last year in the parliamentary agenda - should be in general discussion next month, and includes the foundation of a National Seed Institute that legalizes and certifies agricultural production in the country.
genic seeds and technological packages are needed and that the project will be later taken to debate before the social movements of Venezuela, farmers, and even producers supporting the use of transgenic seeds.

Urena, however, said that the great development of agricultural production by the use of transgenic seeds in member countries of the South Common Market (MERCOSUR) such as Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, is now a reality and states an alternative.Professor Olga Domenech, coordinator of the National Plan of the Agro Ecology Formation Program of the Bolivarian University of Venezuela, said that the use of transgenics not only damages the environment, but also contaminates varieties of local cultivations and human beings.
The specialist - who collaborates in the formation of the law - said that professionals for a transition in agro-ecology are being trained.
The law should include the vision of farmers, producers, and customers, said Domenech finally.

Taken from: https://occupymonsanto360.org/blog/2013/ ... at-market/

Kansas Wheat Farmer Sues Monsanto for Gross Negligence Following Discovery of GMO Leak Due to Destruction of Wheat Market
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]By Fritz Kreiss [FONT=Segoe UI]|[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]June 4, 2013[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Segoe UI]By Susman Godfrey LLP

[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]WICHITA, KAN. — /PRNewswire/ — A Kansas wheat farmer today filed a civil lawsuit against Monsanto alleging gross negligence and other causes of action following press reports last week of the discovery of unapproved genetically modified wheat in an 80-acre field in Oregon. The farmer seeks compensation for damages caused by the discovery, which sent wheat export futures prices spiraling downward. The case may be the first of many Monsanto faces over alleged wheat contamination.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]Susman Godfrey, one of the nation’s leading trial firms, along with co-counsel the Murray Law Firm and Goldman Phipps, PLLC, filed the case before the Honorable Monti Belot, in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

[FONT=Segoe UI]“Monsanto has failed our nation’s wheat farmers,” said Stephen Susman, Susman Godfrey’s lead attorney on the case. “We believe Monsanto knew of the risks its genetically altered wheat posed and failed to protect farmers and their crops from those risks.”

[FONT=Segoe UI]After news broke of the discovery of the unapproved wheat, Japan and South Korea suspended some imports of American wheat, and the European Union, which imports more than 1 million tons of U.S. wheat a year, said it would ensure its “zero tolerance” policy against genetically modified crops was maintained. Kansas exports about 90 percent of its wheat.

[FONT=Segoe UI]According to Martin Phipps, who litigated similar contamination claims involving the U.S. rice crop over the past several years, the reaction in Asian and European markets does not come as a surprise. “Our agricultural trading partners have little tolerance when it comes to genetically modified foods. Contamination of non-GMO crops presents a huge risk to our agricultural economy.”

[FONT=Segoe UI]Monsanto developed and planted the experimental wheat in open fields from 1998 to 2005. The company engineered the wheat to be resistant to glyphosate, the key ingredient in its own weed killer, Roundup. However the company never submitted the wheat to federal agencies for commercial approval when it became apparent that world markets did not want any form of genetically modified wheat.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]Given the size of the wheat crop, farmers may face significant damages. New Orleans trial lawyer Stephen Murray stated: “The full extent of the damage Monsanto has caused is not yet known, but we are committed to helping farmers as the extent of the wheat contamination becomes clear.”

[FONT=Segoe UI]Stephen Susman, founder of Susman Godfrey, along with Warren Burns, Terry Oxford, and Daniel Charest make up the Susman Godfrey team representing Plaintiff Ernest Barnes. Susman Godfrey’s co-counsel include Stephen Murray and Arthur Murray of the Murray Law Firm and Martin Phipps of San Antonio’s Goldman Phipps.[/FONT]

Taken from: https://occupymonsanto360.org/blog/2013/ ... -dwellers/

Unsafe Levels of Glyphosate (Monsanto’s RoundUp) Found in Urine of City Dweller

[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]By Fritz Kreiss [FONT=Segoe UI]|[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]June 4, 2013[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]
[FONT=verdana]by Dirk Brändli und Sandra Reinacher of Ithaka Journal

Glyphosate is the main active substance used in most commercial herbicides. It poisons not only plants, but also animals and humans. When testing for glyphosate contamination in an urban population, a German university found significant contamination in all urine samples with levels 5 to 20 times above the legal limit for drinking water.

Most herbicides used in commercial agriculture and small gardens as well as for de-weeding railway lines, urban pavements and roadsides contain the active substance glyphosate. The most widely used glyphosate containing herbicides goes under the name “Roundup” by Monsanto. Since the patents on glyphosate have expired, several other agrochemical companies such as Syngenta, Bayer, Nufarm and DowAgro Science have been producing and selling herbicides containing glyphosate. To date approximately half of the 800 000 tons of glyphosate produced annually worldwide are produced in China.
Glyphosate was invented in Switzerland in 1950 and first synthesized by Monsanto in 1970. The compound was found to radically affect the metabolism of plants by preventing them from forming essential amino acids. Glyphosate is a systemic-acting broadband herbicide that kills almost all green plants. Depending on the rate of metabolism, the affected plants die off completely within a few days.
Monsanto, Bayer and other companies genetically engineer crops that are resistant to glyphosate. Thus, plantations with genetically modified corn, soy or canola can be sprayed with glyphosate to exterminate weeds between the crop plants. This method, however, results in a glyphosate residue on the crop, which then enters the food chain of animals and humans.

Glyphosate in the Urine of Humans and Animals


To this day Monsanto continues to advertise its Roundup products as environmentally friendly and claims that neither animals nor humans are affected by this toxin. Environmentalists, veterinarians, medical doctors and scientists, however, have raised increasing alarms about the danger of glyphosate in the animal and human food chain and the environment. The fact that glyphosate has been found in animals and humans is of great concern. In search for the causes of serious diseases of entire herds of animals in northern Germany, especially cattle, glyphosate has repeatedly been detected in the urine, faeces, milk and feed of the animals. Even more alarming, glyphosate was detected in the urine of the farmers.


Taken from: https://occupymonsanto360.org/blog/monsa ... this-time/

Monsanto Found to Have 2 ‘Secret’ GMO Wheat Test Fields in the US at this Time

[FONT=Segoe UI] [FONT=Segoe UI]By Fritz Kreiss [FONT=Segoe UI]|[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]June 4, 2013[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana]While the vast majority of us in the country were operating under the belief that there was no genetically engineered wheat growing anywhere in the country since Monsanto said they were cancelling GMO wheat testing in 2005, largely because it was not expected to ever reach approval at least in the US. However, we were wrong, even the most seasoned food and ag journalists were in the dark about the fact that Monsanto had secretly resumed testing in two separate locations in America totaling a surprising 450 acres. This wheat, like most current and commercial GMOs, was created by splicing bacterial DNA into the plants to make them resistant to Monsanto’s well known RoundUp brand herbicide with the primary ingredient glyphosate. Bloomberg recently discovered this surprising fact as Monsanto recently confessed to them in light of the escaped GMO wheat just discovered in Oregon, as they reported:
The world’s largest seed company planted 150 acres of wheat in Hawaii last year that was genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate weedkiller, which the company sells under the brand name Roundup, according to a Virginia Tech database administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Another 300 acres of wheat engineered with Roundup tolerance and other traits are being tested in North Dakota this year.

[FONT=verdana]This is a very serious issue, not only for our own food supply but for the entire US wheat industry itself, as it has already been quite damaged by multiple countries boycotting American wheat almost as soon as the report of GMO wheat was made public. As some of you may remember, there was a somewhat similar issue concerning Syngenta’s Libertylink GMO rice less than a decade ago. When the rogue GMO genes were found to have escaped test plots and contaminate large areas in parts of the midwest and south or the country, Europe and Russia banned all American rice from their countries and continent out of fear that their own rice breeds and industry could be damaged by it. The following lawsuit in the wake of the economic destruction of the GMO tainted rice escaping totalled a $750 million dollar fine and cost the company more than $900 million all told in the end, and the country’s rice industry is still reeling from the continuing damaging effects.

It’s high time that these biotech companies stop testing experimental, uncontrollable, and potentially dangerous organisms out in the open, and keep them in carefully managed, safe, and secure laboratories to protect the people, the valuable natural genetic heritage of our existing crops, as well as all industries concerned. Let’s hope that as the USDA investigates this most recent leak that they consider revamping their regulations regarding these issues to better represent the needs and wants of our countries citizens, farmers and consumers alike.

Taken from: https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-monsan ... pe/5337502
“The Monsanto Protection Plan”: Monsanto’s Deception Game on GMO in Europe

By F. William Engdahl
Global Research, June 04, 2013

On May 31 world media headlines read similar to this from Reuters: “Monsanto backing away from GMO crops in Europe.” The original source for the story is attributed to a German left daily, TAZ which printed excerpts from an interview with an official spokeswoman of Monsanto Germany.
Ursula Lüttmer-Ouazane reportedly told Taz “We’ve come to the conclusion that this has no broad acceptance at the moment.”
Her remarks were circulated worldwide and Reuters interviewed Monsanto corporate spokesman Thomas Helscher who reportedly said,
“We’re going to sell the GM seeds only where they enjoy broad farmer support, broad political support and a functioning regulatory system. As far as we’re convinced this only applies to a few countries in Europe today, primarily Spain and Portugal.”

Before the world opens the champagne to celebrate the death of GMO and its paired herbicides such as Roundup, it is worthwhile to look more closely at what was officially said.

What Monsanto itself says

A visit to the official website of Monsanto Germany presents an official company press release referring to the media statements:
“Aktuell überschlagen sich die Medien mit der Nachricht, dass Monsanto die Vermarktung von gentechnisch verbessertem Saatgut in Deutschland und Europa eingestellt haben soll.
Das stimmt so nicht. Monsanto bietet schon seit einigen Jahren nur dort gentechnisch verbesserte Sorten an, wo ein funktionierendes Zulassungssystem und breite Unterstützung auf landwirtschaftlicher und politischer Ebene für die Technologie vorhanden ist. Aber grundsätzlich ist es richtig, dass Monsanto sich in Deutschland und Europa auf die Züchtung und Verkauf von konventionellem Saatgut und Pflanzenschutzmitteln konzentriert.”

Translated, the essential part says,

”Right now the media is flooded with reports that Monsanto has stopped the marketing of GMO seeds in Germany and the EU. That is not correct…”

Then on the parent website of Monsanto in St. Louis, the following statement appears:

“We have a robust business selling high-quality, conventional corn, oilseed rape and vegetable seeds to our farmer customers in Europe. We’ve been telling people in Europe for several years now that we’ll only sell biotech seeds where they enjoy broad farmer support, broad political support and a functioning regulatory system. These conditions apply only to a few countries in Europe today, primarily Spain and Portugal. As Hugh Grant, our CEO told the Financial Times in 2009, ‘Europe’s going to make up its own mind in its own time.’ The only GM trait grown in Europe today is a corn resistant to the European corn borer, an insect that can do considerable damage to crops. Its cultivation accounts for less than 1% of the all corn cultivated in Europe (by hectares).”

Both statements are worth closer attention.

First the German statement is a bit different from the US version. It officially denies as false the press reports that they have ceased marketing of GMO seeds in the EU.
Second, their statement that they concentrate on breeding and sale of conventional seeds and plant protection chemicals is nothing other than a description of what the present status of Monsanto sales in the EU, nothing more. Because of the limited use so far of Monsanto GMO seeds in the EU, Monsanto business by definition is focuses now where it earns money.
However the “plant protection chemicals” Monsanto refers to are primarily its own Roundup herbicide, which by license agreement with farmers must be sold paired with all Monsanto GMO seeds, but is also the number one weed killer sold in Europe and the world. It has also been proven to be highly toxic even to human embryo cells.

The US statement has interesting important differences. First it gives no hint of any change in Monsanto policy towards spreading GMO seeds in the EU. It states explicitly they will continue to spread GMO seeds in Spain and Portugal, both EU countries. And it cites chairman Hugh Grant, not to be confused with the Hollywood actor, indicating the company expects the EU to come around on allowing its GMO. And it cites the present status of its GMO corn in the EU. Nothing more. No statement of a stop to GMO in the EU.

Suspicious Timing…

Yet for most of the world who don’t have time to research the official statements of Monsanto but merely glance at a Reuters or TAZ headline, the message has been delivered that Monsanto has given up its EU effort on proliferating its GMO seeds. The timing of the TAZ interview is suggestive of what seems to be a carefully orchestrated Monsanto PR deception campaign. The TAZ original by writer Jost Maurin appeared on the same day, May 31, less than one week after March against Monsanto , a worldwide protest demonstrations against Monsanto, took place in more than 400 cities in some 52 countries around the world. The TAZ article that was then used as reference for all world media after, appeared under the emotional and factually misleading headline: Sieg für Anti-Gentech-Bewegung: Monsanto gibt Europa auf (Victory for anti-GMO Movement: Monsanto Gives up Europe).

The March against Monsanto was notable in several key respects. Most alarming for Monsanto and the GMO cartel was the fact that it was the first such demonstration not organized by anti-GMO NGOs such as Greenpeace or BUND or Friends of the Earth. In Germany where this author participated as a speaker in one of the events, it was all organized by concerned activists via facebook. But the NGOs who formally oppose GMO were reportedly nowhere to be found as sponsors or even reportedly as active organizers.

That march presented Monsanto and friends with a frightening new element—the danger that that grass roots anti-GMO protest would spread and make life even more difficult for GMO proliferation in Africa, in China, India, Latin America and of course eastern and western Europe. All indications are that the timing of the well-formulated TAZ interview, notably with a left newspaper openly opposed to Monsanto GMO, was an orchestrated attempt to “manage perceptions” and take the headwind out of the sails of the growing anti-GMO sentiment in the EU and abroad. For the moment, Monsanto has gained a tactical victory in propaganda points as the broad public takes the retreat at face value. As one experienced opponent of Monsanto GMO put it, it bears all the hallmarks of a slick PR campaign, “like a Burson & Marsteller tactic that applies to many controversial bad practices and part of why it works is that it takes a long time to build consumer/activist energy and momentum, whereas the PR-company can start on a very short runway …”

What Monsanto has not done is to recall its already commercialized GMO Maize in the EU, that despite damning independent scientific study of some 200 rats over a two year span showing rats fed GMO maize and Monsanto Roundup herbicide showed dramatically more cancer tumors, higher death rates and organ damage compared with non-GMO-fed rats.
Moreover, Monsanto openly admits it is pushing its way deep into the eastern European market for seeds, though mentioning only conventional seeds. Monsanto Vice President for International Corporate Affairs, Jesus Madrazo, stated that the company has been focusing on gaining market share in the conventional corn market in Ukraine, and that Eastern Europe and South America are key growth areas for the company now.

Then in the USA, it has leaked out that Monsanto directly worked with its apparent current favorite US Senator, Roy Blunt, a Republican from Monsanto’s home state of Missouri and one of the major recipients of Monsanto campaign finance, to draft for Blunt an obscure paragraph Blunt got into a spending bill, a bombshell that exempts Monsanto from being sued for any damage its crops or chemicals cause.


Called by opponents the Monsanto Protection Act, many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the Monsanto Protection Act was a part of the spending bill that they were voting on. The Monsanto bill, signed into law by President Obama despite hundreds of thousands of protest petitions not to, essentially gives Monsanto and other GMO purveyors legal immunity, even if future research shows that GMO seeds cause significant health problems, cancer, anything. The federal courts no longer have any power to stop their spread, use, or sales. The only other corporations in the US enjoying such outrageous legal immunity are the pharmaceutical vaccine makers.
What we have is a quite different picture from the slick spin reported by TAZ and from there picked up worldwide uncritically by mainstream media. Monsanto by its own open admission has not ceased marketing its GMO products and herbicides in the EU. It has not ceased imports of its GMO soybeans and GMO corn into the EU where it has managed to escape the EU GMO labeling law.
Monsanto also states it is concentrating on building market share in eastern Europe, where often regulators are more “relaxed” and in the notoriously corrupt Ukraine. They do not deny promoting GMOs there either; rather they state positively their focus on conventional seeds only. Simply put, the geopolitical stakes behind Monsanto and the attempt to control the world’s most vital seeds of life are far too high for the company to raise the white flag of surrender so easily.

A Monsanto precedent

There is a relevant precedent for this Monsanto PR deception campaign. In 1999, after months of growing worldwide anti-Monsanto protest over the fact Monsanto had made a takeover bid to buy Mississippi company, Delta & Pine Land in order to acquire Delta’s patent on a radical new GMO technique known officially as GURTS (Genetic Use Restriction Technology) and popularly as Terminator technology. Delta has won a patent together with the US Government’s USDA for the Terminator. It would force a GMO seed or plant to “commit suicide” after only one harvest, forcing the farmer to return each year to Monsanto to buy new seeds regardless the price or availability.

The Terminator image threatened to derail the entire fledgling GMO project at the outset such that Rockefeller University President and GMO financial sponsor, Gordon Conway, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, made a rush visit to meet Monsanto’s board and convince them to make what was a tactical retreat in order to limit damage to a very fragile GMO campaign worldwide. Monsanto announced, deceptively it proved, that it would not pursue “commercialization” of Terminator technology and it dropped its takeover bid for patent holder Delta & Pine Land. The anti-GMO NGOs claimed a huge victory and nothing was heard for seven years until, with no fanfare, in 2006 Monsanto announced it was acquiring Terminator patent co-holder Delta & Pine Land. This time there was scarcely a peep from the anti-GMO lobby. They had lost momentum and the deal went ahead.

It remains to be seen if the forces for healthy non-GMO agriculture today prove as gullible as in 1999.

This information isn't too terribly surprising when you consider the food their trying to create. This is food that is a pesticide, growth hormone, freak of a labratory. Are people that surprised to find that this "food" is really what makes people sick? We banned certain pesticides and other chemicals on plants, so now that we're engineering them to produce it on their own, it's no wonder that the body's filtration systems are damaged when they try to fight this toxic "food."

Hi to all:

I think the big pictures starts to unfold and Monsanto is just the beginning. Total control and power is the agenda. When I learnt about Monsanto it made me realize that one of goals other than fascist control is to sterilize the population and affect the DNA of the new generation of indigo children.
We the people must peacefully find ways to fight against all this or the future will not be nice. The possible reality if we allow all this and not react is the de-evolution of humans and becoming "greys" No feelings, can't reproduce, no personality and the species dies out. They are here from the future to tell us that. The human species must survive or there will be only hybrids from the greys in an effort to have some of the human characteristics survive. One of the places where the negative forces are more active is in U.S. and that is also the reason why there are more indigo children born there and also more people being awaken there. It is not a coincidence that your government is trying to eliminate most of the population there. The American people must take their power back. Start by not buying Monsanto food, study and demand your constitution rights. Don't fear.

My heart is with you.

Taken from: https://occupymonsanto360.org/blog/ethic ... the-world/

Ethical Investing: Is your money being invested with the most evil company in the world?

[FONT=Segoe UI] [FONT=Segoe UI]By Fritz Kreiss [FONT=Segoe UI]|[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]June 5, 2013[/FONT]

[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]People often choose to boycott GMOs or decide to go organic for their own health reasons, but that alone isn’t enough to turn the tide in our fight for food freedom, food sovereignity, and creating a sustainable and healthy food system. Some people cannot afford to feed themselves, let alone be a bit picky about the quality of what they have available to them so we have to help them through other means by going a bit more all out in our own efforts.

The boycott has proven to be one of the most effective means of protest and creating change time and again throughout history. If you’re reading this article now you already more than likely are already boycotting Monsanto by choosing not to buy GMOs and pesticide ridden food when possible, but do you go further and pay attention to the where, what, and how the cotton in your clothes? Investments are the most overlooked areas of participation in the financial arena, they are also one of the greatest opportunities. If you wouldn’t allow yourself or your own company to commit crimes, damage the environment, or take advantage of the poor and disadvantaged; why would you invest in a company that does such things.

[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]The tricky thing about boycotting a company on the stock market is that most people’s money is invested in retirement funds, mutual funds, hedge funds. And yes, even the money invested in your basic bank account might be invested in Monsanto without your knowledge. Doing this allows people to let others manage their money so that they don’t have to think about it, but we still ought to think about it to a degree as where we invest our money affects what happens in the world. Monsanto is widely recognized around the Earth as the most evil company in the world, and yet people have invested nearly $20 billion dollars in the company, many of them not aware that their money is supporting the very company that they hate.

[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Please contact whomever is in charge of your money and investments and find out who they’ve invested your money with and what they are supporting. If you are looking for a place to invest, please check through the following chart of companies to avoid. This list is a compilation and will be updated over time as info changes, you can help by letting us know who you are or were investing with and whether or not that company or fund supports Monsanto. (Click on the link at the top of this post for this - Pat)

[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Side note: Thanks to the recent protests, growing dissent, and especially the rogue GMO wheat that escaped and was found on a farm in Oregon, Monsanto stock has dropped in value by approximately 10% in recent weeks and is continuing to plunge. Considering that the company has a market capitalization of more than $50 billion, their value has dropped by billions in almost no time. Let’s keep that trend going![/FONT][/FONT]


Taken from: https://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/ ... alian.html
[FONT=inherit]n Italy: 16 out of 20 Italian regions, 41 provincias and 2446 municipalities have declared themselves GM-free
Download the full list of all GMO free regions, provinces and municipalities in Italy[/FONT]

[FONT=inherit](updated list, 2008)[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]Abruzzo, Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano Südtirol, Emilia-Romagna, Lazio, Liguria, Marche, Molise, Piemonte, Sardegna, Toscana and Umbria are all members of the European network of GMO-free Regions[/FONT]

Taken from: https://occupymonsanto360.org/blog/new-s ... lzheimers/

New Study Links Monsanto’s RoundUp to Autism, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s

[FONT=Segoe UI]By Fritz Kreiss [FONT=Segoe UI]|[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]June 4, 2013[/FONT]
Just as Monsanto attempted to discredit scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini’s study on rats fed genetically engineered corn, the company called this peer-reviewed journal article “another bogus study” due to its “bad science.”

[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]by Genna Reed of EcoWatch

[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]A new review of hundreds of scientific studies surrounding glyphosate—the major component of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide—sheds light on its effects within the human body. The paper describes how all of these effects could work together, and with other variables, trigger health problems in humans, including debilitating diseases like gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Glyphosate impairs the cytochrome P450 (CYP) gene pathway, which creates enzymes that help to form and also break down molecules in cells. There are myriad important CYP enzymes, including aromatase (the enzyme that converts androgen into estrogen) and 21-Hydroxylase, which creates cortisol (stress hormone) and aldosterone (regulates blood pressure). One function of these CYP enzymes is also to detoxify xenobiotics, which are foreign chemicals like drugs, carcinogens or pesticides. Glyphosate inhibits these CYP enzymes, which has rippling effects throughout our body.

[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Because the CYP pathway is essential for normal functioning of various systems in our bodies, any small change in its expression can lead to disruptions. For example, humans exposed to glyphosate have decreased levels of the amino acid tryptophan, which is necessary for active signaling of the neurotransmitter serotonin. Suppressed serotonin levels have been associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease.

[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]This paper does not claim to yield new scientific discoveries. Instead, it looks at older studies in a new light. Critics will say the links between glyphosate and health problems made in this paper are purely correlational, but this work is important because it brings all of the possible health effects of glyphosate together and discusses what could happen: something the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration have failed to do.

[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Just as Monsanto attempted to discredit scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini’s study on rats fed genetically engineered corn, the company called this peer-reviewed journal article “another bogus study” due to its “bad science.” In a classic pot-calling-the-kettle-black scenario, what Monsanto doesn’t mention is that the majority of research showing glyphosate’s safety has been done by Monsanto itself, which could be called bad science as well due to its limited and biased nature.

[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]The authors of the new review call for more independent research to validate their findings, stating that “glyphosate is likely to be pervasive in our food supply, and contrary to being essentially nontoxic, it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment.” If the body of independent research on GE foods and the herbicides used with them shows one thing, it is that there are unanswered questions begging for unbiased research. And while these questions remain unanswered, Americans have the right to know how their food was produced.[/FONT][/FONT]

Taken from: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... onomy.aspx

Did Monsanto Just Ruin the Economy?

[FONT=Arial][FONT=inherit]By [FONT=inherit]Rich Duprey[/FONT]
June 6, 2013

[FONT=Arial][FONT=inherit][FONT=Arial][FONT=verdana]They said it couldn't happen. It was all supposed to be locked up tight and under control. Yet, despite all the assurances to the contrary, unapproved genetically modified wheat has been found in an Oregon wheat field, and the implications of its discovery are far-reaching and potentially devastating.Monsanto (NYSE: MON ) may have just single-handedly wrecked the wheat industry and the economy.
[FONT=Arial][FONT=verdana]Corn, soy beans, alfalfa, sugar beets. All these crops have been genetically modified by Monsanto and its GM brethren to the point where there are virtually no alternatives for farmers. GM corn accounts for 86% of the country's supply. More than 90% of the soy beans have been altered. Sugar beets are half the country's sugar supply, and 95% of those seeds are from Monsanto.
[FONT=Arial][FONT=verdana]All told, Monsanto, DuPont (NYSE: DD ) , and Syngenta (NYSE: SYT ) control 53% of the world's seed production, yet their control of our food supply is almost all-encompassing, because they cross-license their technology between themselves and with other companies.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=verdana]Monsanto recently agreed to share its technology with Dow Chemical (NYSE: DOW ) and Bayer (and vice versa), while DuPont and Bayer similarly expanded their collaboration. Syngenta is cross-pollinating Dow's AgroSciences division with its GM technology.
[FONT=Arial][FONT=verdana]Yet, the one crop that has been saved from being altered up until now has been wheat. Not that Monsanto hasn't tried, as it experimented with modifying its DNA to make it resistant to its Roundup herbicide. Fields in 16 states including Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, and Oregon were used to test Roundup Ready wheat seed. But because the rest of the world has banned GM wheat from their bread boxes, Monsanto backed off, and suspended the program in 2005.
[FONT=Arial][FONT=verdana]The wheat strain discovered last month was in a field that was supposed to remain fallow. Instead, it sprouted, and was found to contain the Roundup Ready gene, even though the Agriculture Dept. supposedly destroyed all the seed that was tested except for a small amount it kept to run additional tests. Now we learn that some managed to escape.
[FONT=Arial][FONT=verdana]The U.S. is, by far, the world's largest exporter of wheat, shipping almost 28 million metric tons around the world, or about half of all the wheat this country produces each year. That's just as much as all of Europe and Canada combined! Countries like Japan and South Korea are huge importers of U.S. wheat, but it's done on one condition: the wheat can't be genetically modified.
[FONT=Arial][FONT=verdana]In the wake of the discovery of this supposed rogue GMO strain, Japan began canceling wheat imports, and so did South Korea. Both Taiwan and Europe are stepping up their monitoring of imports with an eye toward suspending them if genetically modified wheat is found. With 90% of the wheat from Oregon, Washington, and Idaho earmarked for export, the emergence of a GMO strain could cripple the market for it and, thus, the economy.
[FONT=Arial][FONT=verdana]While officials immediately proclaimed it an isolated incident, how do they know that? They can't even say how it got into the field in the first place, but we're supposed to believe it's not widespread.
[FONT=Arial][FONT=verdana]While Monsanto speculates it could be "sabotage," with the toothpaste out of the tube, it's easy to devise an equally sinister explanation, one that actually benefits Monsanto. Sure, foreign countries would initially reject U.S. exports of GM wheat; but where would they turn to make up half of the world's supply? And when it becomes a choice of feeding their people or starvation, it may ultimately lead to acceptance of genetically modified wheat. And once that happens, Monsanto controls the world's wheat supply. Tinfoil hat brigade stuff to be sure, but no more outlandish than Monsanto's supposition.
[FONT=Arial][FONT=verdana]Despite assurances that GM foods are safe to eat, this latest incident underscores why it's so important that such foods are labeled that they've been altered at the molecular level. Individuals should have a choice as to whether they ingest GM foods or not, but Congress has seen fit to protect Monsanto at every turn by keeping consumers in the dark.
[FONT=Arial][FONT=verdana]When it comes to the nation's bread basket, this country's wheat supply and its economy need to be saved from Monsanto.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=verdana]There are multinational companies that seek world domination through less controversial means, and profiting from our increasingly global economy can be as easy as investing in your own backyard.[/FONT][/FONT]

Taken from: https://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/ ... -food.html
[FONT=verdana]The two largest retailers, Migros and Coop, systematically ban all GM food – including meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM feed – in their supermarket brands:

[/FONT][INDENT][FONT=verdana]Coop and Migros are the most sustainable retailers in the world. This was established by the Munich-based rating agency Oekom Research. Both retailers offer a wide range of products with environmental and social added value.

[FONT=verdana]The independent Munich-based rating agency Oekom Research awarded Coop (first) and Migros (second) the gold medal in sustainability. 130 companies around world were reviewed, however, according to the agency, only eleven of them have a systematic sustainability management programme. Coop has a comprehensive sustainability strategy that includes all areas of the company, from logistics and production facilities to administration and points of sale.[/FONT]

Taken from: https://www.theaggie.org/2013/05/30/move ... rettyPhoto


[FONT=verdana]Movement attempts shutdown of Monsanto office in Davis[/FONT]

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]Activists Vocalize Anger, Concerns Over GMOs[/FONT][/FONT]
Aggie News Writer
Published On May 30, 2013

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]As early as 6 a.m. on May 24, around 100 protesters had already gathered at the Davis office of Monsanto Company at 1910 Fifth St. — known to most as just Monsanto — to express their discontent with the actions and legacy of the multinational agribusiness corporation.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]“We’re just trying to spread awareness about their history and eventually bring them down,” said Kim Sloan, lead activist with the Anti-Monsanto Project (AMP) who was present at the protest.

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]The protest was initiated by the Anti-Monsanto Project, a movement composed of over 30 Northern California groups and organizations, as part of the worldwide March Against Monsanto movement. The movement aims to “bring awareness to health, agricultural, environmental and political issues associated with Monsanto,” according to the demand letter issued by the AMP.

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]That letter, according to Sloan, was sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Department of Agriculture, Gov. Jerry Brown and California Attorney General Kamala Harris, among others, as part of the lobbying efforts of the AMP. The AMP lobbied at the Capitol on May 22, in addition to marching at the Capitol on May 25 and attempting to shut down the Davis Monsanto office.

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]Protesters blocked off the driveways leading into the office parking lot from Fifth Street, although the building was still accessible from a back driveway. On multiple occasions, drivers, possibly Monsanto employees, attempted to drive into the lot from Fifth Street before realizing they were blocked and driving away. Protesters formed a human chain across the back driveway at approximately 7 a.m., but let police officers through.

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]“We’re just out here keeping the peace,” said Davis Police Lt. Ton Phan. “So far there have been no issues and we like that.”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]At approximately 7:30 a.m., a man on a bicycle approached the chain, telling the protesters, “I’ll run you down,” if the protestors refused to move and let him pass. The man biked through, and a protester asked if he worked for Monsanto.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]“Yes I do, and I’m proud of it,” the bicyclist said.

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]In addition to the formation of a human chain, protesters employed the use of various chants such as “human need, not corporate greed” along with “hey, hey, no, no, GMO has got to go” and “hey, hey, no, no, shut down Monsanto.” Many protesters stood along Fifth Street with signs and were honked at by motorists, seemingly in approval.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]“This is the largest event we’ve ever had in Davis and and we’re expecting around 1,000 people to come through here today,” Sloan said. “On May 22, we lobbied legislators and sent out our demand letter, but today is about education. I believe highly in the value of public participation, especially considering what our government has done with Monsanto.”

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]Monsanto and politics

Sloan cited the Supreme Court ruling in Bowman v. Monsanto on May 13, in which the court ruled in favor of Monsanto and held that patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the permission of the patent holder — in this case, Monsanto. Monsanto has the patent rights to 96 percent of the GM (genetically-modified) seeds planted in the US, according to a fact sheet issued by the AMP.

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]“Justice Clarence Walker was an attorney for Monsanto,” Sloan said.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]Sloan mentioned a number of other factors that have fired up the opposition against Monsanto, such as the failure of Proposition 37 to pass in the 2012 elections, a ballot initiative which would have required the labeling of GMO products sold in California. Monsanto was the leading financial contributor in the opposition campaign.

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]A federal bill recently proposed by California Senator Barbara Boxer and supported by the AMP, the “Genetically Engineered Food Right-To-Know Act,” is once again tackling the issue, and would require the labeling of GMO foods. Sixty-four countries, including China, Japan, Russia and all countries within the EU, currently require GMO foods to be labeled.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]“It’s a huge issue in California, but we don’t have as much power on the federal level, so we’re lobbying at the state level hoping to eventually reach the federal level,” Sloan said. “That’s our first step.”

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]Protester motivations

The event attracted both seasoned and first-time protesters, all of whom had slightly different personal motivations for voicing their concerns.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]“This is the first protest I’ve been to in my life,” said Sacramento resident Lynn Sagerdahl. “I’m not much of an activist, but I feel I don’t have a right to talk about it without doing anything.”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]Sagerdahl expressed concern about Monsanto’s GM seeds and their effect on bee population, holding a sign reading, “All we are saying is give bees a chance.” March against Monsanto pamphlets available at the protest cite connections between GM seeds and colony collapse disorder (CCD).
[/FONT][FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]“I used to go into my lavender plants and watch the bees, and in the last couple years there are less and less,” Sagerdahl said. “I don’t think companies like Monsanto see the big picture.”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]Sagerdahl was not the only first-time protester at the event.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]“This is the first protest I’ve been to in my life. I’m passionate about this because it’s killing us and killing our kids,” said physician assistant and midwife Margie DiFelice. “I bought a house in 1989 right next to the fields and would see the planes flying over and spraying. I wouldn’t let my kids play outside then.”

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]Also at the protest was Andrea Mrotz, leader and organizer of Label GMOs Vallejo/Benicia. Mrotz graduated from UC Davis with a degree in microbiology and is working to ban GMOs in Solano County.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]“I did genetic modification in the lab there, so I’m familiar with it,” Mrotz said. “I think a lot of people don’t understand GMOs and what exactly they are, and with my scientific background I want to spread awareness in my community [Vallejo/Benicia].”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]Mrotz became involved in the cause around the 2012 elections when she began volunteering on behalf of the Yes on 37 initiative. After the election, she began working with the California grassroots organization behind the initiative, Label GMOs, and wanted to form a group in her community.

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]“If Marin and Mendocino County can do it, why can’t we?” Mrotz said on banning GMOs.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]Mrotz, who held a sign at the protest, has a tattoo on her forearm of an ear of corn. On closer investigation, it is apparent that several of the kernels are drawn to resemble human skulls.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]“The biggest scare is biological contamination,” Mrotz said. “It’s not just about protesting, but educating people about the small things they can do, like gardening. We need more people speaking out to be heard.”

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]Monsanto’s response

Tom Helscher, director of corporate affairs for Monsanto, issued a statement via email regarding the protest.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]“While we respect the right of individuals to express their point of view on these topics, harassment of individuals is not an appropriate way to further their cause,” Helscher said. “At Monsanto, we believe we are making a contribution to improving agriculture by helping farmers produce more from their land while conserving natural resources such as water and energy.”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]Sloan connected her activism with the AMP to other issues of social justice she finds concerning.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=PT Sans][FONT=verdana]“It’s all one for me. The raping and pillaging of our environment, to me, is connected to violence against women,” Sloan said. “That’s kind of out there. But that’s my ideology.”[/FONT][/FONT]

Taken from: https://sustainablepulse.com/2013/05/12/ ... bRbBtuF9Hm
Nestle Folds to Consumer Pressure over GMOs in South Africa

[FONT=verdana]May 12, 2013

[/FONT][FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]Nestle has gone on record in South Africa as saying that “it took consumer preferences into consideration and therefore all its infant cereals in South Africa used non-GM maize”, the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) announced Friday.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]“This can only be a result of the action that so many…took last year after we released the results showing that Nestle’s Cerelac Honey contained 77.65% GM Maize. This is a victory indeed!” ACB continued.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]ACB recently released results of tests conducted on 7 baby formulas and cereals, by an independent and accredited GM testing laboratory. The results reveal that Purity baby cereals contain extremely high levels of GM content whereas Nestlé’s infant formulas and cereal indicate that Nestle appears to be going GM free. Aspen’s infant formulas also indicate GM avoidance. Shockingly, comparisons also reveal that Purity’s GM baby cereals cost 250% more than non-GM cereals, exploding the myth that GM free food is an expensive and impractical luxury.

[FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]Purity’s Cream of Maize tested positive as containing 56.25% GM maize; and Purity’s Purity Baby First tested positive as containing 71.47% GM maize.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]Neither of these baby foods were labeled as containing products derived from genetically modified maize. This is not the first time that Purity’s Cream of Maize cereal tested positive for GM. In 2008, consumer watchdog SAFeAGE revealed the product to contain more than 24% GM maize.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]“Why has Purity not labeled its products? By failing to label, Purity has acted disingenuously and deprived parents of crucial information about their baby’s nutrition. Adult consumers in SA do not want to eat GM food, much less feed their babies with GM cereals, given that the safety of GM food is highly questionable,” said Zakkiya Ismail, ACB’s Labeling Campaign Co-ordinator.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]Purity has a long history of producing and marketing jarred baby food in South Africa. Food giant, Tiger Brands owns Purity. Tiger Brands was fined R98.8 million (roughly $10 million) in 2007 by the Competition Commission for colluding with other bread producers in a bread price fixing scandal. Tiger Brand products are ubiquitous and account for around 15% of goods sold at every major retailer in the country. Its products include popular brands such as Ace Maize Meal, Albany Bread, All Gold Tomato Sauce, Black Cat Peanut Butter, and Koo bottled and canned food.

[FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]Last year, the ACB tested Nestlé’s baby cereal Cerelac Honey, which contained 77.65% GM maize. This resulted in a huge public outcry. Now, the test results indicate a deliberate effort on the part of Nestle to avoid the use of GMOs in its baby products containing maize and soya products, as its formulas, Nan Pelargon and NAN AR Infant are both GM free. Nestlé’s Mixed Cereal, comprising of maize flour, contained extremely low levels of GM maize and GM soya that would not have triggered labeling. Curiously, however, soya is not listed as an ingredient on the packaging.
These results indicate that Nestlé is not using ingredients or products derived from GMOs in their baby cereals, and considering that 72% of maize grown in South Africa is GM, Nestlé must indeed be trying to avoid it. The traces of GM found in its cereal may well be attributable to contamination along the value chain. “Is Nestlé’ giving in to the demands of South African consumers?” asked Ismail.

[FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]The test results contrast starkly with Nestlé’s pro-GM stance, and its donation of $1.2 million to support an anti-GM labeling initiative in California last year. On 3rd May 2013, Nestlé’ was reported as having dismissed calls by US consumer groups for it to refrain from using GM ingredients in its baby formulas in the US.[SUP]1[/SUP] ”We call upon Nestlé’ to stop using double standards, and desist from using GM ingredients in all its food products, in all countries, as it does in European countries,” said Ismail.

[FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]The ACB is shocked to learn that Purity’s GM-laden cereals are 250% more expensive than Nestlé’s baby cereal that contains only traces of GM contamination. “This belies the claim of the food and biotech industry that segregation of GM and non-GM grains along the value chain and the labeling of GM products will dramatically increase costs, which will inevitably be passed on to the consumer. It appears as if Nestlé has found a way to either absorb such costs, if indeed they do exist, or source non-GM maize economically,” said Mariam Mayet, Director of the ACB.

[FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]Nestlé’ is not alone in its avoidance of GMOs. Aspen’s Infacare Infant was tested to be GM free, and its InfaCare Gold Soya 1 to contain very low traces of GM maize and soya, also indicating possible contamination along the value chain. Multi-national company Aspen is a supplier of branded and generic pharmaceuticals and infant nutritional products. It recently bought Nestlé’s interest in Pfizer to distribute a portfolio of infant formulas to several countries in Africa.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]“These latest findings make a mockery of the ‘beggars can’t be choosers’ argument of the pro-GM machinery in their opposition to GM labeling. They can no longer peddle the myth that the provision of non-GM food is an onerous luxury we cannot afford,” said Mayet.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=verdana]Status of GM food labeling and the right to know in South Africa[/FONT]

[FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]South Africans have been eating GM maize, soya and products preserved or containing GM cotton- seed oil for more than a decade without even knowing it. This is because up until 2011 there was no obligation to label GM foods and provide consumers with information to make a choice. This changed in October 2011 when the Consumer Protection Act came into force. According to the law, all foods containing 5% or more GM content must be labeled. Despite this law, only a handful of companies are beginning to label, the majority are not. In March 2012, the ACB had four products tested for GM content: Cerelac Honey infant cereal, Wheat Free Pronutro, Impala Maize Meal and Future Life Energy Meal. Very high levels of GM content were found yet none of these products were labeled. It emerged that according to the food industry, it felt that it was not under any legal obligation to label GM food because the Consumer Protection Act is not clear as to whether the law applies to processed food. The Consumer Goods Council of South Africa claimed that the labeling laws only apply to live GMOs such as whole kernels of maize. This view means that the majority of the food derived from GMOs on our market will not be labeled. This precipitated widespread consumer pressure on food producers and the government to ensure immediate labeling.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]On the 9 October 2012 the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) published draft amendments to the regulations governing the labeling of GM food. According to the draft amendments, all locally produced and imported food containing 5% or more GM ingredients or components must be labeled as “contains genetically modified ingredients or components”. The proposed amendments convey the clear intention of government that the food industry must now step up to the plate and label their products. The final regulations have to date, however, not yet been promulgated.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Open Sans][FONT=verdana]Nevertheless, several products derived from GMOs are being labeled:[/FONT][/FONT]
  • [FONT=verdana]Pioneer’s Sasko bread is labeled as “soyabean produced using genetic modification”[/FONT]
  • [FONT=verdana]Premier’s IWISA maize is labeled as “contains genetically modified organisms”[/FONT]
  • [FONT=verdana]Pioneer (Sasko’s) Food’s White Star maize meal is labeled as “produced using genetic modification”[/FONT]
  • [FONT=verdana]Pioneer Food’s (Bokomo’s) corn flakes are labeled as “corn 90% (genetically modified)”[/FONT]

Return to “The Living Earth”