Busted: Co-Author of Flawed Stanford Organic Study Has Deep Ties to Big Tobacco’s Anti-Science Propaganda
Mike Adams & Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars.com
Sept 7, 2012
Over the last several days, the mainstream media has fallen for an elaborate scientific hoax that sought to destroy the credibility of organic foods by claiming they are “no healthier” than conventional foods (grown with pesticides and GMOs). NaturalNews and NaturalSociety have learned one of the key co-authors of the study, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an “anti-science” propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.
The New York Times, BBC and all the other publications that printed stories based on this Stanford study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine have been victims of an elaborate scientific hoax carried out by corporate propagandists posing as “scientists.”
The evidence we show here (see below) demonstrates how this study was crafted under the influence of known anti-science fraudsters pushing a corporate agenda. Just as Big Tobacco sought to silence the emerging scientific evidence of the dangers of cigarette smoke, the biotech industry today is desperately seeking to silence calls for GMO labeling and honest, chemical-free food. The era is different, but the anti-science tactics are the same (and many of the quack science players are the same!).
Flawed organic food study author Ingram Olkin chief statistical ‘liar’ for Big Tobacco
Here’s a document from 1976 which shows financial ties between Philip Morris and Ingram Olkin, co-author of the recent organic foods study.
The so-called “research project” was proposed by Olkin, who was also at one time the chairman of Stanford’s Department of Statistics.
Olkin worked with Stanford University to develop a “multivariate” statistical algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics (or to confuse people with junk science). As this page describes on the use of these statistical models: “Obviously, if one chooses convenient mathematical functions, the result may not conform to reality.”
This research ultimately became known as the “Dr. Ingram Olkin multivariate Logistic Risk Function” and it was a key component in Big Tobacco’s use of anti-science to attack whistleblowers and attempt to claim cigarettes are perfectly safe.
This research originated at Stanford, where Ingram headed the Department of Statistics, and ultimately supported the quack science front to reject any notion that cigarettes might harm human health. Thanks to efforts of people like Ingram, articles like this one were published: “The Case against Tobacco Is Not Closed: Why Smoking May Not Be Dangerous to Your Health!” (http://andrewgelman.com/2012/09/cigarettes/)
By the way, if today’s “skeptics” and “science bloggers” were around in the 1950′s and 60′s, they would all be promoters of cigarette smoking because that was the corporate-funded scientific mythology being pushed at the time. Back then it was tobacco, today it’s vaccines and pesticides. New century, new poisons, same old quack science.
The evil Council of Tobacco Research
As the evidence clearly shows, Ingram Olkin has a history of collaboration with tobacco industry giants who sought to silence the physicians speaking out regarding the dangers of cigarettes. One such entity known as the Council of Tobacco Research (CTR) has been openly exposed as paying off publication companies and journalists with more than $500,000 (about $3,000,000 today after adjusting for inflation) as far back as 1968 in order to generate pro-smoking propaganda. The kind of “dark propaganda” serves only to deceive and confuse consumers with phony, fabricated “scientific evidence.”
It all seems eerily similar to the organics-bashing story that just recently appeared in the New York Times, written by proven liar Roger Cohen .
CTR was part of the massive Tobacco Institute, which was essentially a colossal group of cigarette corporations using quack science to attempt to hide the true effects of cigarettes from the public. CTR was a key player in attempting to defeat the monumental case known as the Framingham Heart Study (http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/) — a historical research project that linked cigarette smoking to heart disease. It was during this time that Olkin applied to the CTR in order to oversee and conduct a project smearing and ‘disproving’ the Framingham study.
This can be proven simply by examining the words of the cigarette manufacturer lawyers who were desperate to defeat the potentially devastating heart study. In their own documents, they state:
“I met with Dr. Olkin and Dr. Marvin Kastenbaum [Tobacco Institute Statistics Director] on December 17, 1975, at which time we discussed Dr. Olkin’s interest in multivariate analysis statistical models. Dr. Olkin is well qualified and is very articulate. I learned, in visiting with Dr. Olkin, that he would like to examine the theoretical structure of the “multivariate logistic risk function.”
In an even more telling statement, Olvin’s “sidekick” Dr. Kastenbaum, was revealed to be highly knowledgeable “tobacco industry’s participation in the public disinformation regarding the health hazards of tobacco use, the manipulation of nicotine in tobacco products and the marketing of tobacco products to children.” In other words, these scientists were part of a massive deception campaign intended to smear any real information over the serious dangers of cigarette smoking using ‘black ops’ disinformation techniques.
This deception campaign is being paralleled once again, in 2012, with the quack science assault on organics (and a simultaneous defense of GMOs). Biotech = Big Tobacco. “GMOs are safe” is the same as “cigarettes are safe.” Both can be propagandized with fraudulent science funded by corporate donations to universities.
Dr. Kastenbaum, by the way, went on to become the Director of Statistics for the Tobacco Institute intermittently from 1973 to 1987. Another name for his job role is “corporate science whore.”
Organics study co-author was hired to perform scientific “hatchet jobs”
Further documents (http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_bw/521028845-8850.html) go on to state that Olkin then received a grant from the CTR for his work alongside disinformation specialist Dr. Katenbaum in an effort to perform “deliberate hatchet jobs” on the heart study as described by author Robert N. Proctor Golden in his book entitled Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. Golden explains how Olkin was paid off along with others to falsely testify in Congress that cigarette smoking did not harm the heart:
“George L. Saiger from Columbia University received CTR Special Project funds ‘to seek to reduce the correlation of smoking and disease by introduction of additional variables’; he also was paid $10,873 in 1966 to testify before Congress, denying the cigarette-cancer link…”
This was the same organization that paid what amounts after inflation to over one million dollars to journalists and major publications to disseminate phony information supporting their claims. It’s also important to note that during this time Olkin was still prominently placed within Stanford, remaining so even after openly concealing the truth about the cigarette heart disease link from the public.
Now, Olkin’s newest research fails to address any real factors in the difference between conventional GMO-loaded food and organic. At the same time, it absolutely reeks of the similar ‘black ops’ disinformation campaigns from the 1960′s and 70′s in which he was heavily involved.
Make no mistake: The Stanford organics study is a fraud. Its authors are front-men for the biotech industry which has donated millions of dollars to Stanford. The New York Times and other publications that published articles based on this research got hoaxed by Big Tobacco scientists who are documented, known liars and science fudgers.
Stanford secrecy, plus ties to Monsanto and Cargill
Stanford receives more secret donations than any other university in the U.S. In 2009 alone, these donations totaled well over half a billion dollars.
There’s little doubt that many of these donations come from wealthy corporations who seek to influence Stanford’s research, bending the will of the science departments to come into alignment with corporate interests (GMOs, pesticides, etc.).
Who is George H Poste?
• Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
• Member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
• Served on the Monsanto board since February 2003.
• Former member of the Defense Science Board of the U.S. Department of Defense.
Stanford University has also accepted $5 million in donations from food giant Cargill (a big supporter of the biotech industry) in order to expand Stanford’s Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). “Food security” is a euphemism for genetically engineered crops. Much of the research conducted there is done to try to advocate GMOs.
Cargill has also donated big dollars to try to defeat Proposition 37 in California.
The “scientific” Hall of Shame – a list of scientists funded by the Tobacco industry to fake scientific results
The CRT is the Council of Tobacco Research — essentially a scientific front group that was set up to attempt to invoke “science” to “prove” that cigarettes were not bad for your health.
This list just proves how easily scientists sell out to corporate interests when given grant money. Remember: What Big Tobacco pulled off with fake science in the 20th century, Big Biotech is pulling off yet again today.
Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_99-cv-02496/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_99-cv-02496-4.pdf
Documents reflect that, at a minimum, the following individuals and organizations received funding through Special Account No. 4 beginning in the 1960s and ending in the 1990s:
Able-Lands, Inc.; Lauren Ackerman; ACVA Atlantic Inc.; George Albee; Aleph Foundation; Arthur D. Little, Inc.; Aspen Conference; Atmospheric Health Sciences; Domingo Aviado; James Ballenger; Alvan L. Barach; Walter Barker; Broda 0. Barnes; Battelle Columbus Laboratories; Battelle Memorial Institute; Walter Becker; Peter Berger; Rodger L. Bick; Billings & Gussman, Inc.; Richard Bing; BioResearch Laboratories; Theodore Blau; Irvin Blose; Walter Booker; Evelyn J. Bowers; Thomas H. Brem; Lyman A. Brewer, III; Brigham Young University; Oliver Brooke; Richard Brotman; Barbara B. Brown; K. Alexander Brownlee; Katherine Bryant; Victor B. Buhler; Thomas Burford; J. Harold Burn; Marie Burnett; Maurice Campbell; Carney Enterprises, Inc.; Duane Carr; Rune Cederlof; Domenic V. Cicchetti; Martin Cline; Code Consultants Inc.; Cohen, Coleghety Foundation, Inc.; Colucci, & Associates, Inc.; Computerland; W. Clark Cooper; A. Cosentino; Daniel Cox; Gertrude Cox; CTR; Geza De Takato; Bertram D. Dimmens; Charles Dunlap; Henry W. Elliott; Engineered Energy Mgt. Inc.; Environmental Policy Institute; J. Earle Estes; Frederick J. Evans; William Evans; Expenses related to Congressional Hearings in Washington D.C.; Hans J. Eysenck; Eysenck Institute of Psychiatry; Jack M. Farris; Sherwin J. Feinhandler; Alvan R. Feinstein; Herman Feldman; Edward Fickes; T. Finley; Melvin First; Edwin Fisher; R. Fisher; Merritt W. Foster; Richard Freedman; Herbert Freudenberger; Fudenberg; Arthur Furst; Nicholas Gerber; Menard M. Gertler; Jean Gibbons; Carl Glasser; Donald Goodwin; B. Greenberg; Alan Griffen; F. Gyntelberg; Harvard Medical School; Hearings-Kennedy-Hart Bill; William Heavlin; Norman Heimstra; Joseph Herkson; Richard J. Hickey; Carlos Hilado; Charles H. Hine; Hine, Inc.; Harold C. Hodge; Gary Huber; Wilhelm C. Hueper; Darrell Huff; Duncan Hutcheon; Industry Research Liaison Committee; Information Intersciences, Inc.; International Consultancy; International Technology Corporation; International Information Institute, Inc.; J.B. Spalding Statistical Service; J.F. Smith Research Account; Jacob, Medinger & Finnegan; Joseph Janis; Roger Jenkins; Marvin Kastenbaum; Leo Katz; Marti Kirschbaum; Kravetz Levine & Spotnitz; Lawrence L. Kuper; Mariano La Via; H. Langston; William G. Leaman; Michael Lebowitz; Samuel B. Lehrer; William Lerner; Edward Raynar Levine; G.J. Lieberman; S.C. Littlechild; Eleanor Macdonald; Thomas Mancuso; Nathan Mantel; R. McFarland; Meckler Engineering Group; Milton Meckler; Nancy Mello; Jack Mendelson; Michigan State University; Marc Micozzi; Irvin Miller; K. Moser; Albert Niden; Judith O’Fallon; John O’Lane; William Ober; J.H. Ogura; Ronald Okun; Ingram Olkin; Thomas Osdene (Philip Morris); Peat, Marwick Main & Co.; Thomas L. Petty; Pitney, Hardin & Kipp; Leslie Preger; Walter J. Priest; R. Proctor; Terrence P. Pshler; Public Smoking Research Group; R.W. Andersohn & Assoc.; L.G.S. Rao; Herbert L. Ratcliffe; Attilio Renzetti; Response Analysis Project; Response Analysis Consultation; R.H. Rigdon; Jay Roberts; Milton B. Rosenblatt; John Rosencrans; Walter Rosenkrantz; Ray H. Rosenman; Linda Russek; Henry Russek; Ragnar Rylander; George L. Saiger; D.E. Sailagyi; I. Richard Savage; Richard S. Schilling; Schirmer Engineering Corp.; S. Schor; G.N. Schrauzer; Charles Schultz; John Schwab; Carl L. Seltzer; Murray Senkus (Reynolds); Paul Shalmy; R. Shilling; Shook, Hardy & Bacon; Henry Shotwell; Allen Silberberg; N. Skolnik; JF Smith; Louis A. Soloff; Sheldon C. Sommers (CTR); JB Spalding; Charles Spielberg; Charles Spielberger; Lawrence Spielvogel; St. George Hospital & Medical School; Stanford Research Institution Project; Russell Stedman; Arthur Stein; Elia Sterling; Theodor Sterling; Thomas Szasz; The Foundation for Research in Bronchial Asthma and Related Diseases; The Futures Group; Paul Toannidis; Trenton, New Jersey Hearings; Chris P. Tsokos; University of South Florida; Helmut Valentin; Richard Wagner; Norman Wall; Wayne State University; Weinberg Consulting Group; Roger Wilson; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation; Jack Wiseman; George Wright; John P. Wyatt; J. Yerushalmy; and Irving Zeidman.
This post originally appeared at Natural Society
Dear Foodies,
Bad news. Walmart has decided to sell unlabeled, untested, Monsanto sweet corn.
Our response is here http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/646?t=2&akid=622.160877.fLNih4 but despite thousands of public comments, Walmart has not changed their position.
On September 8th, we need to make sure that they hear from us directly. We’re asking everybody to come together in a statewide day of action to make sure Walmart knows exactly how you feel about this decision. We’ll be dropping off letters in person to each Walmart in the state on Saturday, September 8th at Noon.
Here’s the plan:
RSVP to the Sacremento Walmart Yes on 37 events! http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/647?t=4&akid=622.160877.fLNih4
Find a local Walmart near you. http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/648?t=6&akid=622.160877.fLNih4
Get your friends, family, and others together.
Write a letter expressing your feeling, or simply print and sign your name to the one below.
On September 8th at noon, deliver your letter in person to your local Walmart. Ask to speak to a manager to deliver your letter directly.
Here’s some tips:
Make it fun! Dress like corn, carry corn related items, or have signs with you.
Take pictures of yourself and the other activists outside the store.
Keep it civil and polite. We want to deliver a message, not cause trouble. If we’re asked to leave, we should leave.
Print out Yes on 37 Flyers to distribute to customers. http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/649?t=8&akid=622.160877.fLNih4
With everyone in the state involved, we KNOW we can get our message to Walmart out loud and clear. They need to do two things. First, they should only sell Monsanto’s sweet corn if it is clearly labeled. Second, they need to respond to the overwhelming support for labeling and endorse “Yes on 37”, because it’s our right to know what’s in our food.
Let’s make sure they hear us!
Dave, Lisa and the Food Democracy Now! team
Stanford Scientists Shockingly Reckless on Health Risk And Organics
I first heard about a new Stanford "study" downplaying the value of organics when this blog headline cried out from my inbox: "Expensive organic food isn't healthier and no safer than produce grown with pesticides, finds biggest study of its kind."
What?
Does the actual study say this?
No, but authors of the study -- "Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review" -- surely are responsible for its misinterpretation and more. Their study actually reports that ¨Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."
The authors' tentative wording -- "may reduce" -- belies their own data: The report's opening statement says the tested organic produce carried a 30 percent lower risk of exposure to pesticide residues. And, the report itself also says that "detectable pesticide residues were found in 7% of organic produce samples...and 38% of conventional produce samples." Isn't that's a greater than 80% exposure reduction?
In any case, the Stanford report's unorthodox measure "makes little practical or clinical sense," notes Charles Benbrook -- formerly Executive Director, Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences: What people "should be concerned about [is]... not just the number of [pesticide] residues they are exposed to" but the "health risk they face." Benbrook notes "a 94% reduction in health risk" from pesticides when eating organic foods.
Assessing pesticide-driven health risks weighs the toxicity of the particular pesticide. For example the widely-used pesticide atrazine, banned in Europe, is known to be "a risk factor in endocrine disruption in wildlife and reproductive cancers in laboratory rodents and humans."
"Very few studies" included by the Stanford researchers, notes Benbrook, "are designed or conducted in a way that could isolate the impact or contribution of a switch to organic food from the many other factors that influence a given individual's health." They "would be very expensive, and to date, none have been carried out in the U.S." [emphasis added].
In other words, simple prudence should have prevented these scientists from using "evidence" not designed to capture what they wanted to know.
Moreover, buried in the Stanford study is this all-critical fact: It includes no long-term studies of people consuming organic compared to chemically produced food: The studies included ranged from just two days to two years. Yet, it is well established that chemical exposure often takes decades to show up, for example, in cancer or neurological disorders.
Consider these studies not included: The New York Times notes three 2011 studies by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan that studied pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of an organophosphate pesticide. Once their children reached elementary school they "had, on average, I.Q.'s several points lower than those of their peers."
Thus, it is reprehensible for the authors of this overview to even leave open to possible interpretation that their compilation of short-term studies can determine anything about the human-health impact of pesticides.
What also disturbs me is that neither in their journal article nor in media interviews do the Stanford authors suggest that concern about "safer and healthier" might extend beyond consumers to the people who grow our food. They have health concerns, too!
Many choose organic to decrease chemicals in food production because of the horrific consequences farm workers and farmers suffer from pesticide exposure. U.S. farming communities are shown to be afflicted with, for example, higher rates of: "leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma" -- in addition to skin, lip, stomach, brain and prostate cancers," reports the National Cancer Institute. And, at a global level, "an estimated 3 million acute pesticide poisonings occur worldwide each year," reports the World Health Organization. Another health hazard of pesticides, not hinted at in the report, comes from water contamination by pesticides. They have made the water supply for 4.3 million Americans unsafe for drinking.
Finally, are organic foods more nutritious?
In their report, Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, and co-authors say only that "published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods." Yet, the most comprehensive meta-analysis comparing organic and non-organic, led by scientist Kirsten
Brandt, a Scientist at the Human Nutrition Research Center at the UK's Newcastle University found organic fruits and vegetables, to have on "average 12% higher nutrient levels."
Bottom line for me? What we do know is that the rates of critical illnesses, many food-related --from allergies to Crohn's Disease -- are spiking and no one knows why. What we do know is that pesticide poisoning is real and lethal -- and not just for humans. In such a world is it not the height of irresponsibility to downplay the risks of exposure to known toxins?
Rachel Carson would be crying. Or, I hope, shouting until -- finally -- we all listen. "Simple precaution! Is that not commonsense?"
India Parliament Recommends a Ban on Genetically Engineered Crops
- Third World Network Biosafety Information Service, Posted Sept 5, 2012
Contents: THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION
SERVICE
Item 1
GM crops are no way forward
Satyarat Chaturvedi
The Hindu, August 24 2012 http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3812825.ece?h...Food
security is not about production alone; it is also about bio-safety, and access
to food for the poorest We are predominantly an agricultural economy, with the
agricultural sector providing employment and subsistence to almost 70 per cent
of the workforce. There have been some remarkable contributions from the
agriculture sector to food grain production in the last six decades, when from a
meagre 50 million tonnes in the 1950s, the country has been able to produce a
record 241 million tonnes in 2010-2011. Despite these achievements, the
condition of the farming community is pitiable considering that 70 per cent of
our farmers are small and marginal, and there is a complete absence of
pro-farmer/pro-agriculture policies which has led us to an environment of very
severe agrarian distress.
Pros and cons
In this situation, food
security has been one of the main agendas of the Congress-led United Progressive
Alliance government and also one that the government has been struggling with.
There is a strong opinion among policymakers that biotechnology holds a lot of
promise in achieving food security and that transgenic crops, especially, are a
sustainable way forward. But given the opposition and controversies surrounding
Genetically Modified (GM) crops and the differences of opinion among
stakeholders, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture decided to
take on the mammoth task of an objective assessment of the pros and cons of
introducing GM crops.
We expect the observations in our report to answer
the big question on the role of GM crops in achieving food security. We hope the
recommendations will be acted upon at the earliest. The committee felt this was
all the more necessary in the light of the Prime Minister's exhortation at the
Indian Science Congress about the full utilisation of modern biotechnology for
ensuring food security but without compromising on safety and regulatory
aspects.
The lessons
In India, the only commercialised GM crop is
Bt cotton. Industry and the Central government have painted a picture of success
about it - saying it has led to an increase in production and that the costs of
cultivation have gone down. But the ground reality is starkly different. This
was evident during the extensive interactions of the committee with farmers in
different cotton growing regions around the country during study visits in March
2012.
Besides analysing the facts and figures provided by government
agencies and listening to eminent cotton scientists, the committee's
consultation with farmers in Vidharbha helped us conclude that the Bt cotton
saga is not as rosy as made out to be. In Vidharbha, the per-acre investment in
cultivating traditional varieties, or even pre-Bt hybrids, could be less than
Rs. 10,000. That was certainly the case until the first half of the previous
decade. But for Bt cotton, even the un-irrigated farmer is spending upwards of
Rs. 15,000-18,000 or even more per acre. And irrigated farmers complain of input
costs exceeding Rs. 45,000 per acre. While the investment and acreage rose
dramatically, the per acre yield and income did not increase in equal measure
and actually fell after initial years. Indeed, the Union Agriculture Minister
spoke of Vidharbha's dismal yields on December 19, 2011 in the Rajya
Sabha.
It was clear that at least for the rain-fed cotton farmers of our
country, the introduction of Bt cotton offered no socio-economic benefits. On
the contrary, it being a capital intensive practice, the investment of farmers
increased manifold thus exposing them to greater risks due to massive
indebtedness. It needs to be remembered that rain-fed farmers constitute 85 per
cent of all cotton growing farmers.
Added to this, there is desperation
among farmers as the introduction of Bt cotton has slowly led to the
non-availability of traditional varieties of cotton. The cultivation of GM crops
also leads to monoculture and the committee has witnessed its clear
disadvantages. The decade of experience has shown that Bt cotton has benefited
the seed industry hands down and not benefited the poorest of farmers. It has
actually aggravated the agrarian distress and farmer suicides. This should be a
clear message to policymakers on the impact of GM crops on farming and
livelihoods associated with it.
The risks
From the various
deliberations to which the committee was privy, it is clear that the technology
of genetic engineering is an evolving one and there is much, especially on its
impact on human health and environment, that is yet to be understood properly.
The scientific community itself seems uncertain about this. While there are many
in this community who feel that the benefits outweigh the risks, others point to
the irreversibility of this technology and uncontrollability of the Genetically
Modified Organisms (GMO) once introduced in the ecosystem. Hence, they advocate
a precautionary approach towards any open release of GMOs.
One of the
concerns raised strongly by those opposing GM crops in India is that many
important crops like rice, brinjal, and mustard, among others, originated here,
and introducing genetically modified versions of these crops could be a major
threat to the vast number of domestic and wild varieties of these crops. In
fact, globally, there is a clear view that GM crops must not be introduced in
centres of origin and diversity. India also has mega biodiversity hotspots like
the Eastern Himalayas and the Western Ghats which are rich in biodiversity yet
ecologically very sensitive. Hence it will only be prudent for us to be careful
before we jump on to the bandwagon of any technology.
The committee's
findings on the GEAC-led regulatory system for GM crops show that it has a
pro-Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and pro-industry tilt. It has also come
under the scanner due to its inefficiency at the time of Bt Brinjal approval and
for behaving like a promoter of GM crops rather than a regulatory body mandated
to protect human health and environment from the risks of biotechnology. The
DBT, whose mandate is to promote GM crops and fund various transgenics research,
has a nominee as the co-chair of the GEAC, who gives the final approval for
environmental and commercial release of GM crops.
The current regulatory
system is shameful and calls for a complete makeover. While the government has
been toying recently with the idea of a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority, the
committee dismisses this and instead recommends an all-encompassing Biosafety
Authority. While the committee has also evaluated international regulatory
systems on GM crops, it recommends the Norwegian Gene Technology Act whose
primary focus is bio-safety and sustainable development without adverse effects
on health and environment, as a piece of legislation in the right direction for
regulating GM crops in India.
The committee strongly believes that the
problem today is in no measure comparable to the ship-to-mouth situation of the
early 1960s. Policy and decision-makers must note that the total food grain
production rose from 197 million tonnes in 2000-2001 to 241 million tonnes in
2010-11. A major argument by the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation
before the committee in favour of GM crops was their potential to ensure the
country's food security. But the issue of food security is not about production
alone; it also means access to food for the poorest. Moreover, there is no
evidence as yet that GM crops can actually increase yields.
The
committee, therefore, recommended the government come up with a fresh road map
for ensuring food security in the coming years without jeopardising the vast
biodiversity of the country and compromising with the safety of human and
livestock health.
The committee unanimously feels that the government
should take decisive action on the recommendations of this report and rethink
its decision of introducing transgenics in agriculture as a sustainable way
forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 2
Bar GM Food Crops, Says Parliamentary Panel
By Gargi
Parsai, The Hindu, India http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3747247.ece
10 August 2012
In a major setback to the proponents of
genetically modified technology in farm crops, the Parliamentary Committee on
Agriculture on Thursday asked the government to stop all field trials and sought
a bar on GM food crops (such as Bt. brinjal).
The committee report,
tabled in the Lok Sabha, demanded a "thorough probe" into how permission was
given to commercialise Bt. brinjal seed when all evaluation tests were not
carried out.
It said there were indications of a "collusion of the worst
kind from the beginning till the imposition of a moratorium on its
commercialisation in February, 2010, by the then Minister for Environment and
Forests."
The report came a day after Maharashtra cancelled Mahyco's
licence to sell its Bt. cotton seeds.
It flayed the government for not
discussing the issue in Parliament and observed that the Ministry failed in its
responsibility by introducing such a policy, ignoring the interests of the 70
per cent small and marginal farmers.
The report criticised the
composition and regulatory role of the Genetic Engineering Approval (Appraisal)
Committee and the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation
(RCGM).
According to Committee chairman Basudeb Acharia, there is not a
single note of dissent in the report of the 31-member panel, including nine from
the Congress and six from the BJP. Observing that GM crops (such as Bt. cotton)
benefited the (seed) industry without a "trickle-down" gain to farmers, it
recommended that till all concerns were addressed, further research and
development should be done only in contained conditions.
Citing instances
of conflict of interest of various stakeholders, the panel said the government
must put in place all regulatory, monitoring, oversight and surveillance
systems.
Raising the "ethical dimensions" of transgenics in agricultural
crops, as well as studies of a long-term environmental and chronic toxicology
impact, the panel noted that there were no significant socio-economic benefits
to farmers. On the contrary, farmers have incurred huge debts because of this
capital-intensive practice. "Today, 93 per cent of the area is under Bt. cotton
because no alternative seeds are available," Mr. Acharia
said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 3
GM Panel Recommends Halting All Field Trials
By Jacob P.
Koshy, Livemint, India http://www.livemint.com/2012/08/09223326/GM-panel-recomme...9
September 2012
A parliamentary committee has recommended halting all
field trials of genetically modified (GM) seeds and sought an independent probe
into how the government had accorded approval to Bt brinjal, a seed that was
developed by Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd (Mahyco).
Though it's not
mandatory for the government to accept the parliamentary standing committee's
recommendations, the suggestions of several such panels have significantly
influenced government policy. Former environment minister Jairam Ramesh in 2010
imposed a moratorium on the sale of Bt brinjal seeds in India.
The
recommendations of the panel comes a day after the Maharashtra government
cancelled Mahyco's licence to sell Bt cotton seed in the state. This was after
allegations that the company had misinformed state agricultural officials on the
availability of Bt cotton seeds for farmers.
Mahyco said in a statement
that it will wait to hear from the government before addressing issues around
the ban.
"In India, where 82% of the agriculture industry is of small
farmers and where there is huge biodiversity, we should not go for GM foods.
Even if we take the argument that we have to increase our food production
according to the demands, we should look into indigenous ways to enhance it,"
said Basudeb Acharya, chairman of the standing committee on agriculture and a
leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
Pointing out that the
introduction of Bt cotton was not discussed in Parliament before it was
introduced in the country, Acharya said there was neither a study on its impact
on cattlefeed made out of the cotton seeds, nor was any specific regulatory body
to ensure food safety and standards.
The parliamentary panel, which met
around 1,500 farmers in Goregaon in Maharashtra, also found they were left with
no other alternatives to Bt cotton seeds in the market.
"The production
cost, which was reduced due to less usage of pesticides, has been increasing,"
Acharya said. "And we found largest number of suicides were reported from the
areas where Bt Cotton is grown."
The committee also pointed out that
Ayurvedic medical practitioners have complained it had an adverse impact on the
medicinal plants grown in the area.
The panel's study on Cultivation of
Genetically Modified Food Crops - Prospects and Effects is among the most
extensive studies conducted by a parliamentary standing committee. The panel
received 467 memorandums, 14,862 documents and reviewed evidences given by 50
organizations during its 27 sittings on the subject.
While Bt cotton is
the only GM plant that,s allowed to be cultivated, several private companies
have been looking at introducing different kinds of GM seeds, including rice,
tomato and wheat.
Following protests from civil society groups and
farmers, several state government,s have banned trials of GM crops.
To
bring greater transparency in the way crops are tested, the government has
proposed an independent regulator, called the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority
of India. Legislation to set up the authority has been pending for two
years.
Earlier this year, the ministry of consumer affairs, food and
public distribution ruled that all packaged food that was sourced from GM
ingredients had to be labelled so.
The "report vindicates the concerns
and positions taken by many state governments in India, such as Bihar, Kerala,
Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, etc., which have disallowed GM crops, including
field trials. It also vindicates the larger public demand not to allow GM crops
into our food and farming systems," Sridhar Radhakrishnan, convener of the
Coalition for a GM-Free India, a group that is opposed to the introduction of GM
crops, said in a
statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item
4
Proper Tests Not Done Before Giving Nod To Bt Brinjal: Parliamentary Panel
The Economic Times, India http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/...10
August 2012
NEW DELHI: A parliamentary panel has recommended a thorough
probe into the controversy surrounding Bt Brinjal and indicated the approval
committee was under tremendous pressure from the "industry and a minister" and
did not conduct requisite tests properly before granting approval for
introduction.
The 31-member parliamentary standing committee on
agriculture tabled its report in Parliament on "Cultivation of genetically
modified food crops - prospects and effects", on Thursday. The 492-page
exhaustive report on the issue has rejected the idea of genetically modified
food crops for India, punching holes in the theory of an urgent need to increase
food production through bio-technology. The committee had taken up the issue suo
moto in 2010, when a debate over Bt Brinjal and Bt Cotton was raging. It has now
observed it was convinced that the government did not carry out significant
tests properly before giving a go-ahead for commercial production of Bt
Brinjal.
The committee said it was indicative of "collusion of a worst
kind". Standing committee chairman Basudeb Acharia said the observation was made
after testimony of Dr PM Bhargava, the Supreme Court nominee on Genetic
Engineering Appraisal committee (GEAC), before the parliamentary panel. Bhargava
said co-chairman of GEAC Prof Arjula Reddy confessed that the tests asked by
Bhargava for assessing Bt Brinjal had not been carried out and even the tests
undertaken were performed badly as Reddy was under pressure with calls from
industry, GEAC and the minister to approve Bt Brinjal. Speaking to reporters
Acharia refused to divulge the name of the minister. When asked whether the
committee was told the name, Acharia replied in the negative. The committee
found that GM crops have an impact on health and the environment and these
aspects were overlooked while approving Bt Brinjal trials in India.
After
examining the issue for two-and-a-half years, the committee felt there was no
need to introduce genetically modified food crops in India. Acharia said, "in a
country like India, where 82% of farmers are small and marginal we should not go
for genetically modified food crops. But if at all the government decides to -
because of the argument that the demand for food will increase abnormally by
2020 and existing technology would not be sufficient - then there should be
enough safeguards in place. Even then we feel that the government should go for
indigenous alternatives. If you see in the past we have been able to increase
our food production from 56 million tonnes to 254 million tones, then why do we
think in future we won,t be able to achieve such growth in food
production?"
The committee has strongly criticised the present regulatory
system for genetically modified crops, calling it antiquated and inadequate. It
has pointed out serious conflict of interest of various stakeholders involved in
the regulatory mechanism as well. Making sharp observations on the issue, the
committee has recommended that the government bring an all-encompassing umbrella
legislation on bio-safety, which is focused on ensuring the bio-safety,
biodiversity, human and livestock health, environmental protection and which
specifically describes the extent to which bio-technology, including modern
bio-technology, fits in the scheme of things. Acharia said the committee as
recommended that the government bring such a legislation "after due consultation
with all stakeholders and bring it before Parliament without any further
delay."
The panel has also recommended proper labelling of genetically
modified food. Acharia said the consumer had the right to know and make an
informed choice. He pointed out that other countries which allow GM food, such
labeling laws are in place.
"The committee recommends that the government
should immediately issue regulation for making labeling of all GM products,
including food, feed and food products, so as to ensure the consumer is able to
make an informed choice in the matter of what he/she wants to consume," the
report says.
The report is significant as it comes at a time when the
Centre, especially the Ministry of Science and Technology, is trying hard to
introduce a new regulatory system for GM crops by the name Biotechnology
Regulatory Authority of India.
The committee is dominated by UPA with 11
Congress MPs, two from DMK and one Trinamool Congress member. With one member
from Samajwadi Party and two from BSP, the total strength of UPA and supporting
parties is 17 on the panel. Left Front has two members, including Acharia and
one Forward Bloc MP and NDA has 12 MPs.
Ironically, the stand taken by
Acharia-led committee is divergent from the view of CPM, Acharia's party. CPM
polit bureau member S Ramachandran Pillai had kicked up a storm in Kerala last
year when he had nuanced his party,s view by saying complete opposition to
genetically modified crops was superstitious. Pillai also appeared before the
standing committee as the president of the All India Kisan Sabha and said: "I am
for making use of the achievements of science and technology in agriculture as
in the case of other areas... There are possibilities for increasing
productivity and production in agriculture by making use of genetically modified
crops... Very rigorous bio-diversity tests should be conducted to ensure that
the genetically modified crops should not cause any ill effects on human life,
other plant and animal life and also on the overall environment."
12 New GM Crops Up For USDA Approval
- USDA Fast-Tracks GMO Crop Approval Process
By Melinda Suelflow,
Campaigns
Organic Consumers Association, August 15, 2012 Straight to the Source
Earlier this
summer, the USDA posted twelve new GE crops for public comment with a September
11 deadline, and nine are under the new fast-tracked process. That's twelve new
GMOs to review and issue comments on in two months!
Here's the lowdown.
Three of the new crops are under the old petition process. Under the old process
there is only one 60-day public comment period. Here are the three crops under
the old process:
--- Dow 2,4-D and
Glufosinate Tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0019)
Since the introduction of GM
crops, the US has seen herbicide use increase by over 300
million pounds. Big Biotech originally claimed that weeds would not develop
resistance to glyphosate (RoundUp), but they have and these new "superweeds"
have become the driving force behind new crops engineered for stacked, or
multiple, herbicide tolerances. Adoption of these new crops will lead to
dramatic increases in the use of higher risk herbicides such as 2,4-D and
dicamba, perpetuating the herbicide treadmill that is already in place.
2,4-D is already the third-most-used US herbicide, after glyphosate and
atrazine, and as a leading source of dioxin pollution, it's one of the most
deadly. As of yet, however, it's hardly used on soy at all. Just 3 percent of total US soybean acres were treated with 2,4-D in
2006. Not only will this percentage skyrocket once Agent Orange Soy hits the
market, the amount used per acre may triple, according to the USDA.
Take Action!---Bayer Glyphosate and
Isoxaflutole Tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0029)
Bayer's petition to force its
new controversial herbicide (isoxaflutole) tolerant soy on the market conceals
crucial information on potential allergenicity and toxicity that came to light
when EU experts examined the GMO soybean.
Take Action!---Syngenta
Corn Rootworm Resistant Corn (APHIS-2012-0024)Syngenta's genetically
engineered Bt crops have been banned in many countries because of the documented
harm they cause to people, animals and insects. Bt corn produces its own
insecticide that kills bad bugs and good bugs alike, Bt corn pollen has
reportedly killed peasants in the Philippines, Bt livestock feed harms animals,
and the Bt toxin is now found in the blood of over 80% of women and their unborn
children.
Take Action!Under the new process, USDA has also
opened nine additional new crops for public comment. This initial comment period
applies to the petitions for nonregulated status which include information
submitted by the petitioning company. Once USDA has the completed their
environmental analyses they will open a final 30-day comment period for the
decision-making documents.
Here are the 9 crops under the new process
with the same September 11 deadline:
---Okanagan Non-Browning Apple (APHIS-2012-0025)
Take Action!Okanagan's "Arctic" apple would be
the first genetically engineered version of a food that people directly bite
into. According to the latest study by the Environmental Working
Group, conventionally grown apples are the most pesticide contaminated fruit
or vegetable on the market. Conventional apples are dangerous, and GMO apples
are just a dumb idea - one not even supported by many in the apple industry
itself!
---Monsanto Dicamba Tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0047) Take Action!According to the
Institute for Science in Society (ISIS), "dicamba is actually an old
herbicide that served alongside "agent orange" in Vietnam, and has been
resurrected as an environmentally friendly chemical through the magic of public
relations." ---BASF Imidazolinone
Tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0028)---Monsanto High Yield Soybean (APHIS-2012-0020)---Monsanto Hybrid Corn (APHIS-2012-0027)Four of the nine are
genetically engineered with a soil bacteria that keeps them alive even when
they're sprayed with massive doses of the herbicide glyphosate (Monsanto's
RoundUp). More of these so-called "RoundUp Ready" crops mean more RoundUp
sprayed on our food. This is horrible because Monsanto's RoundUp causes birth
defects. Instead of "RoundUp Ready" we should call these GMOs "Birth-Defect
Ready"!
According to a report published by Earth Open Source, industry's own studies -- including one
commissioned by Monsanto -- showed as long ago as the 1980's that RoundUp's
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes birth defects in laboratory
animals.
---Dow 2,4-D, Glyphosate and
Glufosinate tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0032)Take Action!---Monsanto Glyphosate Tolerant Canola (APHIS-2012-0035)---Pioneer Glyphosate Tolerant Canola (APHIS-2012-0031)---Genective Glyphosate Tolerant Corn (APHIS-2012-0046)USDA Fast-Tracks GMO Crop
Approval Process
Despite massive public opposition, last year the USDA announced plans to streamline its genetically engineered
petition process under the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
Earlier this year these controversial changes were implemented, speeding up the
approval process for new genetically engineered seeds and crops. The new process
will cut in half the time it takes for new GE seeds and crops to enter the
market.
USDA claims that the new fast-track process allows for earlier
input from the public to improve the quality of its environmental analyses. But
according to a USDA press release, the new process is a part of efforts by the
Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, to "transform USDA into a high-performing
organization that focuses on its customers." The customers that USDA is so keen
on assisting are none other than Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, BASF, Syngenta, and the
rest of the Biotech bullies!
Is organic food little more than a trumped-up
marketing scheme, another way for affluent consumers to waste money? A
just-released paper by Stanford University researchers—and the reaction to it by
the media—suggests as much. (Abstract here; I
have a copy of the full study, but can't upload it for copyright reasons.)
"Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of
Organic Meat and Produce," declared
a New York Times headline. "Organic food hardly healthier, study
suggests," announced
CBS News. "Is organic healthier? Study says not so much, but it's key reason
consumers buy," the Washington Post grumbled.
In reality, though, the study in some places makes a strong case for
organic—though you'd barely know it from the language the authors use. And in
places where it finds organic wanting, key information gets left out. To assess
the state of science on organic food and its health benefits, the authors
performed what's known among academics as a "meta-analysis"—they gathered all
the research papers they could find on the topic dating back decades, eliminated
ones that didn't meet their criteria for scientific rigor, and summarized the
results.
In another post I'll get to the question of nutritional benefits—the idea,
expressed by the Stanford authors, that organic and conventional foods are
roughly equivalent in terms of vitamins and other nutrients. What I want to
discuss now is the problem of pesticide exposure, and why I think the Stanford
researchers are underestimating the risks.
In short, the authors' findings confirm what the
Environmental Working Group, crunching USDA data, has been telling us
for years: that organic fruits and vegetables harbor significantly fewer
pesticide residues than their chemically grown peers. Summing up the evidence of
the studies they looked at, the Stanford researchers find what they call a 30
percent "risk difference" between organic and conventional food—which to the
mind not trained in statistics, sounds like organic foods carry 30 percent less
risk of exposing you to pesticides. And they immediately undercut that finding
by noting that the pesticide traces found in both organic and conventional food
tend to be at levels lower than the Environmental Protection Agency's maximum
allowed limits. Takeaway: Conventional produce carries trivially small levels of
pesticides, and you might as well save your money and forget organic.
What's wrong with this comforting picture?
1. Conventional produce is much worse than
organic on the pesticide-exposure question than the 30 percent number
suggests. That's what Chuck
Benbrook of the Organic Center shows in a detailed critique of the
study. To get the 30 percent number, the authors used an odd statistical
construct they call "risk difference." By their method, if 5 percent of organic
vegetables contain at least one pesticide trace and 35 percent of conventional
vegetables contain at least one trace, then the "risk difference" is 30 percent
(35 minus 5). But that's a silly way of thinking about it, because there's a
much greater difference between those numbers than "30 percent" suggests.
Crunching the authors' own raw data, Benbrook finds "an overall 81% lower risk
or incidence of one or more pesticide residues in the organic samples compared
to the conventional samples."
But even that doesn't get to the full extent of the study's underestimation,
since:
2. To arrive at their "risk difference" metric, the authors didn't
distinguish between a single pesticide trace and multiple traces; or between
light traces and heavier traces. For their purposes, an organic apple
carrying a tiny residue of a relatively innocuous pesticide is equivalent to a
conventional apple containing a cocktail of several relatively toxic pesticides.
Here's Benbrook on why that's silly:
a) most residues in organic food occur at much lower levels than in
conventional food, b) residues are not as likely in organic foods, c) multiple
residues in a single sample are rare in organic food but common in conventional
produce, and d) high-risk pesticides rarely appear as residues in organic food,
and when they do, the levels are usually much lower than those found in
conventional food (especially the levels in imported produce).
Now, the authors might reply that all of this is trivial, because the traces
that researchers find on produce, whether conventional or organic, almost always
come in at levels below the EPA's safety threshold. But:
3. This ignores a growing
body of research that pregnant women's fetuses can be
harmed at low exposures of organophosphate pesticides, as can young
children.
And what's more:
4. The authors—like the EPA itself—ignore
the "cocktail effect" of exposure to several pesticides, say, from a single
apple. As Environmental Working Group's analysis of USDA data shows,
conventional produce like apples, blueberries, and bell peppers often carry
traces of many pesticides. The EPA regulates pesticide traces only on an
individual basis, disregarding possible synergistic effects. The European
Commission is starting to take them more seriously. Here's a report
commissioned by the European Commission in 2009:
There is a consensus in the field of mixture toxicology that the customary
chemical-by-chemical approach to risk assessment might be too simplistic. It is
in danger of underestimating the risk of chemicals to human health and to the
environment.
Which brings us to the fifth point:
5. We probably know more about how exposure
to low levels of multiple pesticides affect amphibians than we do about how they
affect people—and what our amphibious friends are telling us isn't
pretty.
In short, the Stanford study seriously underplays the benefit of going
organic to avoid pesticide traces, especially for vulnerable populations like
pregnant women and kids. In a future post, I'll show why it does the same for
exposure to antibiotic-resistant pathogens in meat, and doesn't give organic its
due with regard to nutritional benefits.
Source: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/five-ways-stanford-study-underestimates-organic-food
Busted: Co-Author of Flawed Stanford Organic Study Has Deep Ties to Big Tobacco’s Anti-Science Propaganda
