Thursday, December 31, 2009

GMO BANS in DIFFERENT NATIONS



genetically-modified-food-tomatoes-syringes-photo.jpg
Photo credit: David Gould / Getty Images

GMO Bans, Laws, and Labels from Around the World
by Collin Dunn, Corvallis, OR, USA on 12. 3.09
Food & Health
Prince Charles has called them the "biggest environmental disaster of all time,"
while agriculture industrialists like Monsanto swear they're safe for human consumption and a boon for the environment. Genetically modified foods are nothing if not controversial, and that controversy spans the globe. From Ireland and the European Union to Africa and Japan, and all the way back to the U.S., various bans, laws, and labels can make GMOs difficult to keep up with. Here's a roundup of the world in GMOs.

Corn is one of the world's most modified crops.
Ireland Bans Growth of GMOs

Ireland recently banned the growth of any genetically modified foods, and the country has also made available a GMO-free label that can be placed on animal products like meat, poultry, eggs and dairy, fish, and crustaceans, that are raised with feed free of GMOs. The government's two coalition partners signed the agreement [pdf] that officially declares Ireland a "GM-free Zone." That's good news for no-GMO advocates in the United States, since it imports a good bit of Irish dairy; lots of casein for cheese production comes to the U.S. from Ireland.
Egypt Bans Import/Export of GMOs
In a move that has as many implications for world trade as it does for agriculture, Egypt has banned the import and export of GMOs. That means that none can come in -- meaning they can't import from any countries growing GMO foods they want -- and none can leave -- meaning they can't grow any GMOs, either. This sets in motion a complex agripolitical dance involving many countries where agriculture is a big part of foreign trade.

For example, "A non-GMO policy would not cause difficulties for sunflower oil but it would for soyoil," according to one European trader. "It would mean that soyoil imports would only be possible from Brazil and not from the U.S. or Argentina." The countries are the world's three largest producers, so Egypt's decision cuts two out of that equation; it remains to be seen if the ban will leverage more GMO-free growth in other countries.
Japan Says No to GMO
Though Japan imports a lot of food from countries still growing and exporting GMO foods -- Australia, the U.S., and Canada, to name a few -- they are staunchly opposed to consuming GMOs. Most of the soy and corn -- two of the most frequently modified foods -- that enter Japan is carefully sourced explicitly as "non-GM," using expensive traceability schemes, but that doesn't cover all of their bases. Keisuke Amagasa, of the Tokyo-based No! GMO Campaign, summed it up:

Japan does not produce any GM crops. However, because Japan imports GM canola from Canada, GM contamination has already occurred and it is spreading to a much greater degree than one could imagine. Judging by the ominous precedent of Canada, once GM crops are cultivated, segregation between GM and non-GM will become almost impossible, and keeping pure non-GM varieties away from GM contamination will be very hard.

France Defines GMO-free Labeling

Currently, there is no European regulation on what constitutes GMO-free, although products that contain more than 0.9 percent genetically modified ingredients must indicate GM content on their labels. That doesn't apply to animals, though, and their meat and dairy products don't require a distinction whether they were fed GMO foods or not.

In France, the Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies is attempting to clear things up, when it comes to the labeling used to identify GMOs; their recent recommendations are expected to become law in the second half of 2010. These recommendations include an upgrade to a threshold of 0.1 percent for genetically modified material in plant products and animal feed, and a minimum distance between apiaries and fields where GM crops are grown (though that distance was not specified). Labels could then designate plant products as 'GMO-free,' animal products as 'fed on GMO-free feed' or 'derived from animals fed without GM feed,' and honey as 'biotech-free.' Stay tuned for final results on this one.


GMO Sorghum has made inroads in Africa.
GMO Sorghum Comes to Africa

Despite the growing tide against GMOs, they're finding their way (legally) into the food systems in some places. In South Africa, the government gave permission to proceed with trials of genetically modified sorghum, with the blessing of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and DuPont, among other supporters. The justification is that, while it is one of the few crops that grows well in arid regions, it lacks most essential nutrients and it has poor protein digestibility; modifying it allows more nutrients to be "put" back in. Opponents of the decision are concerned that the introduction of the GMO crop threatens one of Africa's most important heritage crops.
The U.S. Bans GMOs. In Missouri. In a National Wildlife Refuge
While the U.S. has engaged in a much-publicized holdout from widespread GMO bans, a few small events have started the GMO-free ball rolling. A federal judge issued a ruling in Missouri stating that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife shouldn't have allowed genetically modified crops on a national wildlife refuge. That may not sound like much, but, thanks to the ruling, 37 farming contracts -- many being used for GMO soybean and corn crops -- have been canceled.

Will it lead to more widespread action? Whole Foods Market is on board with a GMO ban, having its store-brand products independently tested to certify that they contain zero GMO content -- who'll be next?

from: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/gmo-bans-laws-labels-around-the-world.php

rBGH Hormone Being OPPOSED for BEEF & DAIRY!

Groups Applaud American Public Health Association for Opposition to Hormone Use in Beef and Dairy Production
For Immediate Release: December 22 2009

Washington, D.C.—Public health and consumer groups today applauded the decision of the American Public Health Association (APHA) to oppose the use of growth hormones in beef and dairy production by calling for a ban on the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in dairy cows and a slate of growth hormones in beef cattle.

APHA is the oldest and largest association of public health professionals in the world, representing 50,000 professionals nationwide. APHA’s resolution follows an official position statement released last year by the American Nurses Association opposing rBGH. The past president of the American Medical Association (AMA) last year asked all AMA members to serve only rBGH-free milk in hospitals.

Full text: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11815--american-public-health-association-opposes-gm-hormone
The APHA resolution can be viewed at: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1379

Contacts: David Wallinga, M.D., Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 612-423-9666

Rich Bindell, Food & Water Watch, 202-683-2457

Rick North, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, 503-968-1520

Martin Donohoe, M.D., Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, 503-819-6979

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

URGENT ACTION BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 2009!

US Working Group on the Food Crisis



What You Can Do to End Corporate Concentration in the Food System!

Urgent! Before December 31st, send a letter to the US Department of Justice telling them about your experience of corporate concentration in the food system! Visit our pages on sample letters and letter ideas to get started.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), will hold a series of public hearings around the country on anti-trust violations, i.e. corporate dominance, in food and agriculture, beginning in March. Numerous topics are being addressed, and they are encouraging members of the public to submit comments based on either personal experience, technical expertise, or even general concern about the dangers and problems of corporate dominance in the food system.

Resources for those writing submissions to the Department of Justice/USDA. To get involved, contact dave (at) maryknoll (dot) org.

http://usfoodcrisisgroup.org/node/24
http://usfoodcrisisgroup.org/

MULTI-MILLION$$$ FROM LOBBYI$T$ TO POISON & GENETICALLY MODIFY PLANET


Published on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 by Gaea Times
Monsanto Awarded 'Angry Mermaid' Lobbying Prize

COPENHAGEN - Biotech giant Monsanto won a dubious honour Tuesday when an online poll awarded it the "Angry Mermaid" prize for what critics see as misleading lobbying on the issue of climate change.

The award was unveiled in Copenhagen, home to an iconic statue of Hans Christian Andersen's fairytale character the Little Mermaid, on the sidelines of United Nations talks on fighting global warming.

"Monsanto was nominated for promoting its genetically modified (GM) crops as a solution to climate change and pushing for its crops to be used as biofuels. The expansion of GM soy in Latin America is contributing to major deforestation and greenhouse-gas emissions," the nomination ran.

In a web-based poll of 10,000 people, some 3,700 tipped Monsanto as the most aggressive and inappropriate lobbyist, ahead of oil giant Shell (1,800 votes) and the American Petroleum Institute (1,400 votes).

"Monsanto has attracted thousands of votes from individuals who are outraged that such an environmentally-damaging form of agriculture should be put forward to tackleclimate change," said organizer Paul de Clerk of environmental group Friends of the Earth.

"Big business must not be allowed to sabotage action against climate change by promoting their vested interests. All the candidates for the ‘Angry Mermaid' award have lobbied to protect their own profits and prevent effective action to tackle climate change," he said.

The award was set up by Friends of the Earth and five other groups to "highlight those business groups and companies that have made the greatest effort to sabotage the climate talks, and other climate measures, while promoting, often profitable, false solutions."

Hundreds of activists have descended on Copenhagen in recent days to push for a worldwide deal on fighting climate change and cracking down on pollution.

The event has spawned a number of ironic awards targeting groups seen as hostile to a deal.

As well as the Angry Mermaid, for example, environmentalists have created a "fossil of the day" prize to target the country or company which is seen as having done most to block progress.
© 2009 Gaea Times

Monday, December 7, 2009

NON GMO SHOPPING GUIDE SITES


Look at what is (or isn't) on the labels: If a product is not labeled as being GMO-free, most likely it contains some GM ingredients.

The shopping guide also has a long list of so-called invisible GM ingredients that can make their way into one's diet.








For more information, go to: http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com

There are plenty of other websites with detailed information on GM foods and genetic engineering, some of which also provide downloadable shopping guides for consumers. Some of them include:

http://www.sustainablestuff.co.uk
http://www.seedsofdeception.com
http://www.truefoodnow.org
http://vivresansogm.org
http://guideogm.greenpeace.ca
http://www.non-gmoreport.com

IT ISN'T EASY BEING GREEN - THANKS TO OUR GOOD FRIENDS AT SYNGENTA

Birth defects and deformities in frogs have been proven in research for many years. Not only do our crops get bombarded with such weed killers, these "killers" are absorbed into the crops we eat, leached into soils, and run off into our water tables, streams and rivers. (Reuters image)


What kinds of crops need so many weed killers? Mostly the GMO crops that not only require by contract, the use of their "designer" herbicides, but studies show that the need for such "killers" is escalating year after year as target species gain resistance to them. Billions of tons of chemical fertilizers, herb/pesticides are poured into our planet every year with no real regulation. What are we doing in Copenhagen at all if the G20 does not target GMO food industries, admittedly now the largest source of greenhouse gases on Earth (U.N. Report 2009), on their agenda for complete overhaul? -Clean Food Earth Woman

Published on Monday, December 7, 2009 by Reuters
Study Finds Weed Killer Affects Frogs Sexually

OTTAWA - The widely used weed killer atrazine affects the sexual development of frogs, raising questions about the effects of its use in the environment, the University of Ottawa said on Thursday.

[The widely used weed killer atrazine affects the sexual development of frogs, raising questions about the effects of its use in the environment, the University of Ottawa said on Thursday. (Reuters image)]The widely used weed killer atrazine affects the sexual development of frogs, raising questions about the effects of its use in the environment, the University of Ottawa said on Thursday.
A study by researchers at the university found that at low levels comparable to those measured in the Canadian environment, fewer tadpoles reached the froglet stage and the ratio of females to males increased.

"Atrazine is one of the top-selling herbicides used worldwide and was designed to inhibit weed growth in cornfields," the university said in a statement.

"It is so widely used that it can be detected in many rivers, streams and in some water supplies. This has raised the alarm on the possibility of other serious detrimental environmental effects."


Syngenta AG, a major Swiss manufacturer of atrazine, has long defended its safety.
The company has said it is one of the best-studied herbicides available and pointed to previous safety reviews from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and World Health Organization, among others.

The EPA said in October that it was reviewing the health impacts of the herbicide. Some studies have tied it to birth defects, low birth weight and premature babies.
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/07-4
(Reporting by Randall Palmer; editing by Peter Galloway)

FAKE LABELS OF FOODS TO BE INVESTIGATED


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 7, 2009
12:33 PM

WASHINGTON - December 7 - Nutrition Facts labels on packaged foods have helped guide Americans' food choices for 15 years. But in that time, companies have cooked up a number of schemes to trick consumers about what's in-or isn't in-packaged foods. Today, the Center for Science in the Public Interest-the group that campaigned for the 1990 law requiring nutrition labeling-exposes some of the tricks that occur on the front of the label, and unveils makeovers of the Nutrition Facts panel and ingredient lists to last for the next 15 years.

CONTACT: Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
Phone: 202-332-9110
Food Label Makeovers Proposed by CSPI
Designs for New Nutrition & Ingredient Facts Labels Unveiled in Nutrition Action Healthletter
FULL TEXT: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/12/07-5