STILL EATING MEAT? BETTER CHECK THESE FOREIGN LABELS - AS OBAMA CONSIDERS DEREGULATING U.S. MEAT

Deregulated Foreign Meat Inspection Leaves U.S. Consumers Unprotected, USDA Records Reveal FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 15, 2013 1:04 PM

CONTACT: Food & Water Watch Anna Ghosh,aghosh(at)fwwatch(dot)org, 415-293-9905

WASHINGTON - January 15 - Today, the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch released U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspection records from foreign meat plants that reveal troubling examples of how deregulated meat inspection regimes in other countries can put U.S. consumers at risk.
On October 18, 2012, Food & Water Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) for foreign establishment audit checklists for all foreign country audits the agency conducted between 2009 and 2012. It had been customary for FSIS to post the individual plant checklists as part of the country audit reports on its website, but inexplicably, the Obama Administration had stopped that practice.
Food & Water Watch received 155 pages in response to the request, which covered audit checklists from eight countries. Three examples, from Australia and Canada, reveal conflicts of interest and long histories of poor food safety performance.
“These particular establishment audit reports should give U.S. consumers pause about the inadequacy of meat and poultry inspection systems responsible for the safety of products destined for the U.S. market,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “These records offer further proof that the Obama Administration must stop its efforts to deregulate meat and poultry inspection here in the United States and stop its recognition of privatized inspection schemes abroad. Plus, it is unacceptable that these records had to be obtained through the Freedom of Information Act when they should have been posted to the agency’s website in a timely manner.”
Nolan Meats – Australian Establishment No. 80
Nolan Meats is a slaughter facility that processes meat from lambs and sheep. It was the “trial” plant selected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) in 2006 to pilot a new inspection model in which Australian government meat inspectors were removed from the slaughter lines and replaced by company employees (called AQIS Approved Officers or “AAOs”). This new inspection model is based on the HACCP-based Inspection Models Project (HIMP) in poultry and swine that is being conducted in the United States. The alternate inspection model in Australia was originally called the Meat Safety Inspection Program (MSEP); it was recently renamed the Australian Export Meat Inspection System (AEMIS). After several fits and starts, the trial began in earnest in 2008. Data from the trial was provided to FSIS to determine whether this new inspection model should be expanded to all slaughter facilities in Australia.
On March 3, 2011, FSIS posted a Federal Register Notice (76 Fed. Reg. 11752 – 11755) in which it announced the formal recognition of this privatized inspection model as “equivalent” to the U.S. meat inspection system based on the trial. At the time, Food & Water Watch vigorously objected to the FSIS decision and pointed to potential conflicts-of-interest that could occur under such a privatized inspection scheme. Based on FSIS approval, Australia expanded the privatized inspection system to most of its red meat slaughter facilities in late 2011.
FSIS officials visited the Nolan Meats facility on March 21, 2011. In the audit report for that facility, FSIS staff reported:
“Employees of the establishment that work as the AQIS Approved Officers (AAO) conducting post mortem inspection, received financial benefits that are tied to profits generated by the operator of the establishment whose products they inspect. These AAOs receive salaries and profit sharing directly from the establishment. Government officials verify the adequacy of AAO inspection routines and meet the expectations of the CCA (Central Competent Authority). However, the fact that AAOs financial benefits are linked to profits generated by their employer appears to be a conflict of interest that needs the attention of the CCA” (See attached file).
In recent months, the number of imported meat rejections from Australia has increased dramatically, prompting FSIS to call for a review on the entire Australian meat inspection system. Several Australian slaughter establishments have been delisted as being eligible to export to the U.S. as a result of meat rejections. Food & Water Watch sent a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack on January 2, 2013 asking for a status report on the FSIS review and is awaiting his response.
XL Foods, Inc. – Canadian Establishment No. 038
In September and October of 2012, XL Foods, Inc., Canadian Establishment No. 38, was involved in the largest beef recall in Canadian history for E. coli 0157:H7 that sickened 18 Canadian consumers. FSIS issued several “Public Health Alerts” that described the agency’s efforts to help the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recover some 2.5 million pounds of beef products that had been imported from that Canadian plant into the United States.
The contamination was first discovered by FSIS at its border inspection station in Sweetgrass, Montana, when a sample from a shipment of beef from XL was taken for testing. That sample and subsequent samples taken by FSIS inspection personnel tested positive for E. coli 0157:H7 prompting the agency to delist XL Plant 38 on September 13, 2012. It was eventually relisted on December 7, 2012.
In late 2012, FSIS conducted an audit of the Canadian meat inspection system. It included a visit to XL Foods Plant 38. Prior to that, FSIS last visited XL Plant 38 in September, 2009. XL Foods Plant 38 is one of several beef slaughter plants in Canada that has been using a privatized inspection model called the High Linespeed Inspection System (HLIS) in which most of the inspection on the slaughter lines is performed by company personnel. Food & Water Watch recently learned that FSIS had secretly recognized this new inspection model in March 2006.
The 2009 audit of XL Foods Plant 38 proved to be a harbinger of things to come. In that audit, FSIS inspection personnel reported:

• Poor plant sanitation
• Poor plant recordkeeping
• CFIA inspection personnel did not adequately document plant deficiencies or take proper action to verify that deficiencies had been corrected
• Inadequate oversight provided by CFIA supervisory inspection personnel resulted in failures to cite the plant for food safety and sanitation violations (See attached file)

Unfortunately, these are many of the same issues that were uncovered during the 2012 E. coli outbreak when the CFIA conducted its own internal review of XL Foods Plant 38. Food & Water Watch awaits the publication of the FSIS 2012 audit report on Canada’s meat inspection system to verify whether progress has been made, especially at XL Foods Plant 38.
Maple Leaf Consumer Foods, Inc. – Canadian Establishment No. 001
The Obama and Harper administrations have hatched a scheme called the Beyond the Border Initiative (BtB) to deregulate border inspection by allowing Canadian meat processors to ship their products directly to U.S. meat processors without first being scrutinized at the border by FSIS inspectors.
The current inspection system has been in existence since the 1980’s and has worked well for U.S. consumers since it prevents contaminated or otherwise adulterated meat products from entering into U.S. commerce. Food & Water Watch has vigorously opposed BtB from its inception since it eases trade between the two countries at the expense of food safety. Food & Water Watch has also cited examples (here and here) of how the current inspection system at the border catches problems before they endanger U.S. consumers.
The United States and Canada have been in talks to conduct a “pilot project” to prove that a deregulated inspection system could work. In October 2012, Food & Water Watch was able to obtain a document that described the pilot in detail. The document also identified Maple Leafs Plant 001 as one of the participants in the pilot project.
In September 2009, FSIS visited Maple Leaf Foods Plant 001 during its audit of the Canadian meat inspection system and found:

• Poor recordkeeping
• Flaking paint over food contact areas
• Poor sanitation
• Poor employee food handling practices
• Deficient enforcement of food safety standards by CFIA inspection personnel
• Lack of daily inspection by CFIA inspection personnel of all shifts
• Insufficient training of CFIA inspection personnel (See attached file)

Maple Leaf Foods Plant 001 was also part of the 2012 audit conducted by FSIS.
“If this plant is the best that the Obama and Harper administrations can offer, we remain convinced that no pilot should be conducted to test the Beyond the Border initiative for meat inspection,” said Hauter. “The Obama Administration should abandon its ill-conceived initiative for meat inspection because it will leave U.S. consumers vulnerable to unsafe meat products from Canada.”
Inspection records obtained by the October 18, 2012, FOIA can be downloaded here: http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/2013_Jan_15_FSIS_foreign_audit.pdf

###

Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and by transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink. 

Source:  http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/01/15-0

NEW STUDY: ORGANIC FARMLAND INCREASING IN ACREAGE AND YIELD

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 15, 2013 10:53 AM

CONTACT: Worldwatch Institute Supriya Kumar, skumar@worldwatch.org, (+1) 202-745-8092, ext. 510

Achieving a Sustainable Food System with Organic Farming

New Worldwatch Institute report examines the growth of global organic agricultural practices and their impact on food security and the environment

WASHINGTON - January 15 - Despite a slight decline between 2009 and 2010, since 1999 the global land area farmed organically has expanded more than threefold to 37 million hectares, according to new research conducted by the Worldwatch Institute for its Vital Signs Online service (www.worldwatch.org). Regions with the largest certified organic agricultural land in 2010 were Oceania, including Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific Island nations (12.1 million hectares); Europe (10 million hectares); and Latin America (8.4 million hectares), write report authors Catherine Ward and Laura Reynolds.
Organic farming is now established in international standards, and 84 countries had implemented organic regulations by 2010, up from 74 countries in 2009. Definitions vary, but according to the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, organic agriculture is a production system that relies on ecological processes, such as waste recycling, rather than the use of synthetic inputs, such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
"Although organic agriculture often produces lower yields on land that has recently been farmed conventionally, it can outperform conventional practices---especially in times of drought---when the land has been farmed organically for a longer time," said Reynolds, a researcher with Worldwatch's Food and Agriculture Program. "Conventional agricultural practices often degrade the environment over both the long and short term through soil erosion, excessive water extraction, and biodiversity loss."
Organic farming has the potential to contribute to sustainable food security by improving nutrition intake and sustaining livelihoods in rural areas, while simultaneously reducing vulnerability to climate change and enhancing biodiversity. Sustainable practices associated with organic farming are relatively labor intensive. Organic agriculture uses up to 50 percent less fossil fuel energy than conventional farming, and common organic practices---including rotating crops, applying mulch to empty fields, and maintaining perennial shrubs and trees on farms---also stabilize soils and improve water retention, thus reducing vulnerability to harsh weather patterns. On average, organic farms have 30 percent higher biodiversity, including birds, insects, and plants, than conventional farms do.
Certifications for organic agriculture are increasingly concentrated in wealthier countries. From 2009 to 2010, Europe increased its organic farmland by 9 percent to 10 million hectares, the largest growth in any region. The United States has lagged behind other countries in adopting sustainable farming methods. When national sales rather than production are considered, however, the U.S. organic industry is one of the fastest-growing industries in the nation, expanding by 9.5 percent in 2011 to reach $31.5 billion in sales.
Sustainable food production will become increasingly important in developing countries, as the majority of population growth is concentrated in the world's poorest countries. Agriculture in developing countries is often far more labor intensive than in industrial countries, so it is not surprising that approximately 80 percent of the 1.6 million global certified organic farmers live in the developing world. The countries with the most certified organic producers in 2010 were India (400,551 farmers), Uganda (188,625), and Mexico (128,826). Non-certified organic agriculture in developing countries is practiced by millions of indigenous people, peasants, and small family farms involved in subsistence and local market-oriented production.
Further highlights from the report:

• In 2010, the most recent year for which data are available, certified organic farming accounted for approximately 0.9 percent of the world's agricultural land.
• Africa is home to 3 percent of the world's certified organic agricultural land, with just over 1 million hectares certified. Asia has 7 percent, with a total of 2.8 million hectares.
• Despite a decline in organically farmed land in China and India between 2009 and 2010, India's export volume of organic produce increased by 20 percent.

###

The Worldwatch Institute is an independent research organization recognized by opinion leaders around the world for its accessible, fact-based analysis of critical global issues. Its mission is to generate and promote insights and ideas that empower decision makers to build an ecologically sustainable society that meets human needs. 

Source:  http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/01/15

$2.94 BILLION - MONSANTO REVENUE$$$ AS ANTI-TRUST SUIT IS QUIETLY CLOSED AGAINST THEM

Published on Tuesday, January 15, 2013 by Al-Jazeera

Monsanto vs. The People

by Charlotte Silver

Last week Monsanto announced staggering profits from 2012 to celebratory shareholders while American farmers filed into Washington, DC to challenge the Biotech giant’s right to sue farmers whose fields have become contaminated with Monsanto’s seeds. On January 10 oral arguments began before the U.S. Court of Appeals to decide whether to reverse the cases' dismissal last February.Monsanto has established a conveniently intimidating reputation as "a ruthless prosecutor of non-GMO farmers" whose fields have been "contaminated by their neighbours' genetically engineered crops". (Photo: Reuters)
Monsanto's earnings nearly doubled analysts' projections and its total revenue reached $2.94bn at the end of 2012. The increased price of Roundup herbicide, continued market domination in the United States and, perhaps most significant, expanded markets in Latin America are all contributing factors to Monsanto's booming business. 
Exploiting their patent on transgenic corn, soybean and cotton, Monsanto asserts an insidious control of those agricultural industries in the US, effectively squeezing out conventional farmers (those using non-transgenic seeds) and eliminating their capacity to viably participate and compete on the market. (Until the end of 2012, Monsanto was under investigation by the Department of Justice for violating anti-trust laws by practicing anticompetitive activities towards other biotech companies, but that investigation was quietly closed before the year's end.) 
The seemingly modest objective of the current lawsuit, OSGATA et al v Monsanto, originally filed in March 2011, is to acquire legal protection for organic and conventional farmers from Monsanto's aggressive prosecution of inadvertent patent infringements. But the implications of the suit are momentous. If the DC Court of Appeal reverses the dismissal, a process of discovery will be instigated that could unveil a reservoir of information, access to which Monsanto has withheld from public knowledge - both by not disclosing it and preventing independent research. 
Monsanto's abuse of patents 
Between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto filed 144 lawsuits against family farmers and settled 700 cases out of court. Furthermore, food groups estimate that Monsanto investigates hundreds of farmers each year as potential culprits of patent infringement. 
Victims of Monsanto's predatory lawsuits include farmers who used Monsanto seed but violated the licensing agreement, as well as those farmers who never had any intention of growing GE plants. OSGATA et al v Monsanto deals with the latter group and represents 31 farms and farmers, 13 seed-selling businesses, and 31 agricultural organisations that represent more than 300,000 individuals and 4,500 farms or farmers. 
Plaintiffs requested a declaratory judgment that would ensure Monsanto was not entitled to sue the plaintiffs for patent infringement. 
Jim Gerritson, president of OSGATA (Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association) and lead plaintiff in the case, explained to me that organic and non-GMO farmers are a "Classic example of why Congress passed the Declaratory Judgment Act: if you have a group that fears being bullied by a large company, they can petition for protection from claims of patent infringement." 
But the federal courts have always protected Monsanto's rights to profit via a patenting system that increasingly impinges on individual and market freedom, allowing Monsanto to abuse its patent rights. In a natural alliance, OSGATA is represented by attorney Dan Ravicher and Public Patent Foundation, an organisation dedicated to creating a just patent system that balances individual freedom and the ethical issuing of patents. 
Monsanto has established a conveniently intimidating reputation as a ruthless prosecutor of non-GMO farmers whose fields have been contaminated by their neighbours' genetically engineered corn - either through cross-pollination or accidental seed mixing during harvest. 
With these terrifying exemplars in mind, farmers have taken on the burden of preventing contamination by setting up buffer zones, conducting genetic testing and in some cases, giving up on planting the crop altogether. 
Monopolising effect 
By detailing how many conventional farmers have given up trying to grow certain crops, OSGATA's motion to appeal emphasises the monopolisation that has resulted from Monsanto's aggressive pursuit of patent infringement cases. It is estimated that 88 percent of corn and 93 percent of soybeans are genetically modified, most of them by Monsanto. Bryce Stephens, an organic farmer in the northwest of Kansas, is one of those farmers who have decided to forego growing corn and soybeans due to the inevitable contamination that will result. 
"My fear of contamination by transgenic corn and soybeans and the resulting risk of being accused of patent infringement prevent me from growing corn and soybeans on my farm. There is no other reason why I do not grow those crops, and I would very much like to do so." 
As Gerritson described to me, "Farmers have suffered economic loss because they've abandoned growing corn and soybeans because they are certain they will be contaminated. They cannot put their farms and families at risk of being sued for patent infringement." 
Monsanto knows that consumers won't voluntarily buy their products - a lesson they learned in Europe when GE foods there were required to be labelled as such. In America, the company and its allies have spent millions to defeat local labelling initiatives, most recently in California. But if the company successfully crowds out conventional farmers, Americans won't have a choice - with or without a label. 
In spite of the creation of this dangerous monopoly, in February 2012, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted Monsanto's request and dismissed the initial suit, casting the farmers' concerns as "overstated"; urging the plaintiffs to trust Monsanto's (non-legally binding) promises to not exercise their patent rights over inadvertent acquisition of traces of GE plants; and insisting that farmers have created "a controversy where none exists". 
If the farmers' case is allowed to go forward, the very least that will happen is of supreme importance: that is, through the process of discovery the public will gain access to a trove of information that Monsanto has successfully stashed away. Ravicher believes that it can then be established that the products Monsanto peddles are not healthy and, hence, are not for the good of society. Quoting a 150-year-old case, Ravicher reminds us that "an invention to poison the people is not patentable".  
It's clear that the movement to defeat Monsanto is growing. Win or lose this round, the people are not giving up on taking down this monster.

© 2012 Al-Jazeera

Charlotte Silver is a journalist based in San Francisco and the West Bank, Palestine. She is a graduate of Stanford University. 
Source:  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/15-10

GMO LOBBYISTS GUILTY AS SIN

The pro-GM lobby's seven sins against science

Peter Melchett  17 December 2012

The role that genetically modified (GM) food should play in our food chain is a highly contested political issues. One interesting facet of the debate in the past year has been the pro-GM lobby's interest in staking the 'scientific high-ground'; simultaneously positioning itself as the voice of reason and progress, while painting its opponents as unsophisticated 'anti-science' luddites, whose arguments are full of dogma and emotion, but lack scientific rigour. In this essay Peter Melchett explores how such crude characterisations are themselves based on logic that is itself profoundly damaging to the concept and representation of 'science' in our national culture.
Powerful forces in Western society have been promoting genetic engineering (now usually genetic modification - GM) in agricultural crops since the mid-1990s. They have included many governments, in particular those of the USA and UK, powerful individual politicians like George Bush and Tony Blair, scientific bodies like the UK's Royal Society, research councils, successive UK Government chief scientists, many individual scientists, and companies selling GM products. They have ignored the views of citizens, and most sales of GM food have relied on secrecy - denying consumers information on what they are buying (20 US States are currently embroiled in fierce battles over GM labelling, strenuously opposed by Monsanto). Worse, they have consistently promoted GM in ways which are not only unscientific, but which have been positively damaging to the integrity of science.
This is, of course, an argument usually aimed at those who, like me, are opposed to GM crops. We are accused of being 'anti-science', emotional and irrational, and more recently, of being as bad as ‘Nazi book burners’ by the President of the National Farmers’ Union. This criticism has been effective in framing the debate about GM crops in the media in the UK, where the conflict over GM is routinely presented as a debate between those who are pro and those who are anti-science. This is reinforced by the fact that those selected to speak in favour of GM are usually themselves scientists (albeit often working for GM companies, or funded to work on GM crops), and those selected to oppose GM crops are usually environmentalists, farmers, or citizens concerned about the safety of the food they eat. Scientists who are critical of GM crops are almost never interviewed by the media.
This characterisation of those opposed to GM as being anti-science has always ignored the fact that the NGOs concerned, like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association, are staunch supporters of science, have scientists working for them, and run campaigns to combat problems which were only identifiable through scientific investigation, like the depletion of the ozone layer and climate change. People opposed to GM, including farmers and environmentalists, often have professional or scientific qualifications, and are well versed in the scientific disciplines that affect agriculture. This has not stopped supporters of GM crops dismissing all of these people as irrational, emotional, anti-science zealots.
This characterisation also ignores the fact that the major organisations, and most individuals, who oppose GM crops are not opposed to the use of GM technology in medicine, nor to marker assisted selection (MAS) crop breeding, which relies on scientific knowledge of a plant’s genome. If this was really a case of being 'anti-science', how could we approve of the use of GM technology in medicine or MAS crop breeding?
Indeed, the basic science concerning the complexities of gene organisation and function suggests that natural breeding, often augmented with the non-GM biotechnology tool of MAS, is a far more powerful and productive way forward for crop improvement. Natural breeding and MAS not only preserve gene order and function, but allow the multiple gene systems that confer desirable properties such as higher yield,^{1 2 3 4 5} pest-^{6 7 8 9 10} and blight-resistance,^{11 12 13} and tolerance to drought,^{4 14 15 16 17} salinity,^{4 18} and flood,^{4 19 20 21} to be rapidly and relatively inexpensively²² bred into crops – something which is still only a distant dream for GM crop technologists.
I should briefly mention a personal interest in the relationship between GM crops and science. I was one of 28 Greenpeace volunteers who in 1999 removed part of a GM maize crop being grown in Norfolk as part of a five year, field scale trial to investigate the relative impact of GM and non GM crops on farmland wildlife. Those of us who tried to remove that crop were accused of vandalism, of trashing the crop, and of being anti-science. In legal terms, we were accused of criminal damage.
In common with, I think, all scientists, I believe that there should be limits on what experiments scientists can do. As well as the general law, there are ethics committees to protect people from unnecessary or potentially damaging research, and the UK has strict (but not strict enough) controls on the use of animals in research. But there are no ethics committees to protect the environment or the interests of non-GM farmers. I believe that farm-based trials of GM crops threaten both, and that is why I and others tried to remove that GM crop. The jury agreed with us, and all of us were found not guilty of criminal damage, so what we did was found to be legally justified, not vandalism.
The fact that the framing of the debate about the use of GM technology in agriculture, between pro- and anti-science, has been successful does not make it correct. In fact, it is those who promote GM crops who have routinely abused science, ignored the basic principles of scientific investigation and proof, and ruthlessly attacked fellow scientists who disagreed with their pro-GM line. In doing so they have misused, abused and devalued science. If people have less respect for science than in the past, I hold the pro-GM lobby partly to blame. They have done real damage to the integrity and independence of science.
Here is the evidence on which I base this accusation.

The first sin

Pro-GM scientists have made the mistake of conflating their opponents' opposition to commercial products (GM crops) with opposition to science. As I will show, those opposed to GM crops have a different, and I would say more accurate, understanding of the underlying science. But GM soya seeds are not 'science' – they are a commercial product.
These products have impacts in the real world. For example, they are used to alter the relationship between farmers and seed producers, preventing farmers saving their own seed. Once a GM variety has been grown, contamination makes it hard for the farmer to revert to non-GM crops, so GM crops tie farmers into long-term relationships with GM seed producers. This allows these companies to exert considerable power over the cost of farmers’ inputs (much as multiple retailers do over the price farmers receive for their outputs). It is now clear that existing GM crops have encouraged herbicide-resistant weeds^{23 24 25} and insecticide-resistant pests.^{26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34} This has led to ever higher use of more complex mixtures of pesticides to control these pests.^{23 35 36} As a result, the introduction of most GM crops leads to large increases in pesticide use, rather than the decreases predicted by the GM industry.^{23 35}
The GM traits can be passed by crossing to wild relatives of the crop,³⁷ and the insecticide in GM Bt crops can destroy beneficial soil fungi.^{38 39} GM crops have negative environmental impacts, as the UK Government's scientific research programme (the Farm Scale Evaluations), which I opposed, showed.^{40 41 42 43 44}
To oppose GM crops for all or any of these reasons is not 'anti-science'. On the contrary, opponents of GM use scientific evidence and cite the practical consequences of growing GM crops as arguments against the use of this particular agricultural technology.

The second sin

Proponents of GM made the mistake of assuming that the scientific breakthrough of unravelling DNA structure and function, and the discovery of DNA-manipulating enzymes (which led to the development of genetic engineering technology being applied to crops), was based on a full understanding of how genes work. As the history of science shows, many great scientific breakthroughs initially appear to have solved some long-standing problem. But on further investigation, it is frequently the case that the new breakthrough raises a host of new questions and areas for investigation. Those of us who love science find this one of the fascinating things about it.
But the companies that were developing GM crops based their ideas on an over-simplistic model of the control of gene expression, and convinced themselves that they were dealing with a straightforward process – hence their initial decision to call the technology of altering crops 'genetic engineering'. They believed that each gene had a single, unique, independent function, and that moving a gene from one plant or animal to another would allow that gene to express that particular function wherever and however it was located.
Even back in the mid-1990s, some scientists said that pro-GM geneticists were oversimplifying gene expression. They pointed out that the geneticists were ignoring relationships that genes have with other genes and relationships that groups of genes have with other groups elsewhere in an organism’s DNA. They pointed out too that the geneticists were ignoring the other factors that effect the regulation of gene expression.
We now know that these scientists were right, and that gene expression is more complex than was initially supposed. Gene organisation within the genome is not random. Genes tend to be grouped into coordinated functional units, and control of expression is far more complex than was initially supposed. The emerging science of epigenetics has demonstrated that, for example, mice with identical DNA can turn out to have extreme variations, between disease-prone, obese animals and fit, slim animals, simply because of the impact that dietary inputs and environmental chemical exposures have on their DNA control mechanisms during pregnancy.^{45 46 47} Much of the scientific case for GM crop technology is based on a grossly over-simplified view – that genes work as isolated units of information – which we now know to be wrong.
One consequence of the disruptive effect of the GM transformation process is that it can negatively affect crop performance⁴⁸ (for example ‘yield drag’ seen with GM soya).^{49 50} Another consequence is the production of novel toxins^{51 52 53 54 55 56} and allergens,^{57 58 59} as well as disrupted nutritive value.^{60 61 62 63}

The third sin

Instead of embracing new scientific discoveries in this area, the many scientists involved in promoting GM technology have found a number of ways of trying to disguise or ignore the fact that the processes they are promoting are much more complex than they claim.
For example, transferring genes (usually at random) from one plant to another is a far more uncertain, unstable and disruptive process than was originally thought. In order to avoid the costly and time-consuming safety testing of foods produced through this new technology, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – a body devoted not to public health but to facilitating international trade – came up with the concept of 'substantial equivalence'.⁶⁴ This assumes that if relatively simplistic chemical analyses of, say, a GM sweetcorn's protein, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals, find values that can also be found within the range of non-GM sweetcorn varieties, then the GM sweetcorn is deemed to be indistinguishable from, and therefore as safe as, non-GM sweetcorn.⁶⁵
Substantial equivalence was used to deny the need for any biological or toxicological safety testing of GM foods, because GM food was now assumed to be the same as the equivalent food that people had been eating for hundreds of years. This was a political and commercial decision, taken in consultation with, and on behalf of, a small number of large GM companies. It had nothing to do with science. We now know it was opposed by some scientists in the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA),^{66 67 68 69 70 71} but it was pushed through by political appointees to the FDA. The same approach has spread to many other countries, although some are now less enthusiastic, and the European Union avoids using the term “substantial equivalence”, redefining it as the “comparative assessment” process. However, proponents of the European concept of “comparative assessment” admit that it has much the same meaning as “substantial equivalence”.⁷²
An increasing number of detailed biological tests comparing GM and equivalent non-GM crops have now been carried out, not just looking at gross values but rather the spectrum of different types of proteins and other biochemical components. These studies, though few in number, clearly show major differences between the GM and non-GM plants, demonstrating that they are not substantially equivalent.^{60 61 62 63} This science invalidates the use of substantial equivalence to assess the safety of GM crops and food, but it is still used in the USA and forms the basis of safety assessments of GM crops in Europe.
There is still no requirement, in any country in the world, for GM food to be tested in long-term or lifetime animal feeding trials. Nor is there any requirement to test GM food by feeding it to several generations of mice or rats, to see whether it has any identifiable impact. So there is no regulatory requirement for GM food to be tested to see whether it is safe for humans to eat.
In response, it is claimed that much non-GM plant breeding involves chemical or radiological mutagenesis, and thus gives rise to the same risks as GM crop breeding, so it would be wrong to apply extra controls on GM crops and food. It is true that chemical and radiation-induced mutation crop breeding is highly mutagenic. But there is a good reason why it is not widely used – it produces a large proportion of unhealthy and deformed plants.^{73 74} In fact, some scientists have called for plants produced by mutation breeding to be tested in the same way as GM crops.⁷⁵
In addition, there is the possibility that there are features of the GM process itself that may affect the genome that are not possible in non-GM crop breeding. And GM allows a gene to be inserted in radically different foodstuffs. For example, in the case of allergic reactions, affected individuals could no longer simply avoid foods they know they are allergic to, as GM crop breeding could allow a toxic, allergenic or sensitising protein to be inserted in any food, with no warning labels.

The fourth sin

While one result of the adoption of the US interpretation of the unscientific concept of 'substantial equivalence' was to discourage scientific studies of the impact of eating GM foods, in practice, the GM companies try to make sure that studies cannot be conducted at all by independent scientists. As an editorial in Scientific American in August 2009 said:
“It is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers…. Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.... It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find.… But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation's food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country's agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.”⁷⁶

One of the consequences of this determination to stop science working when it comes to research on GM crops, is that numerous pro-GM scientists have fallen into the unscientific trap of claiming that, because GM food has now been eaten by millions of people for several years, it is clearly 'safe'. As most GM food has been eaten in the USA, and in the period since GM food has been produced, the US has suffered a catastrophic increase in diet-related ill health,^{77 78} these same scientists might as well claim that GM food is extraordinarily damaging to human health. Because there has been no GM food labelling in the US, no post-market monitoring, and no epidemiological research, we simply don't know. But to claim that the absence of evidence of harm from GM food means that there is evidence that GM food is safe, when none of the necessary research has been done, shows a wilful disregard for basic scientific principles.

The fifth sin

Although proper studies are difficult to carry out because of the problems of obtaining samples of GM material, some studies have been done looking at the impact of GM diets on animals. Worryingly, these studies, conducted by independent scientists, show negative health effects.^{51 52 53 54 55 56 79 80 81 82 83 84}
The first and best known of these studies was carried out in Scotland by Dr Arpad Pusztai.79 His study, and others that have been conducted since, suggest that some adverse impact was being caused to multiple organ systems in the test animals. None of these studies can claim to be conclusive, and most have not been well funded, but they show evidence of potential harm that the scientists involved say needs to be further investigated. All the scientists have been viciously attacked by pro-GM scientists.^{85 86 87}
Re-evaluations by independent scientists of data obtained from the GM crop industry’s own animal feeding studies also demonstrate clear signs of toxicity. The organs consistently affected are the liver and kidney, the two major detoxification organs, with ill effects on the heart, adrenal glands, spleen, and blood cells also being observed.^{51 53}
What is needed are long-term and lifetime animal feeding studies to see the effects of eating GM foods over an extended period – reflecting the real-life exposure of humans. In addition, multigenerational studies are needed to see the effects on reproduction and future generations. Such studies are compulsory for pesticides and pharmaceutical drugs, but not for GM foods – even though the exposure is likely to be longer-term for a food than for a pesticide or drug.
One of the great things about science is that, in theory at least, it should not be subject to the whims of those in power or those with money. Anyone making a claim on the basis of scientific evidence should publish their evidence in a form that will allow any other scientist to repeat their experiment, and show whether they are right or wrong. Some of the richest and most powerful organisations in the world attacked Dr Pusztai and his work, particularly the UK’s Royal Society. However, to their shame, not one of these critics has seen fit to do what any student learning about scientific method would be told should be the first step, namely, to repeat the experiment. An experiment can be repeated with any modifications that would, in the eyes of the critic, make the study acceptable.
Work done by a young Russian scientist,^{88 89} and by Austrian scientists,⁸⁴ has been attacked in exactly the same way, and no effort has been made to repeat those experiments in order to justify these attacks. These personal attacks have sometimes been coupled with threats that the scientists might lose their jobs or funding (as indeed Dr Pusztai did).⁸⁷ But not once anywhere in the world has a pro-GM scientific body or GM company responded to a scientific study they do not like, by doing what anyone who cared about science should do – repeating the experiment.

The sixth sin

One response to these criticisms from the pro-GM scientists is to claim that there is in fact a rigorous, scientific, regulatory regime, for example in the USA and EU, which proves that GM crops are safe. The regulatory regime for GM crops is not based on science, but rather on selected information from GM companies. And because of the perceived need for commercial confidentiality, not all the research the companies give to the regulators is published.
The gold standard of science is peer reviewed, published research. Open publication is fundamental to the integrity of science, and a prerequisite to another key principle on which science rests, namely the fact that conclusions can always be tested by repeating the research. In the area of GM crops, as in some others, what is claimed to be 'scientific' regulation is based on a perversion of science – secretive and (because there is no requirement to publish or even list all studies) possibly highly selective, corporate information.
Independent researchers and NGOs like Greenpeace have used court orders (under EU Freedom of Information laws) to obtain access to previously secret corporate studies. Re-evaluation of the industry raw data shows that the scientists involved selectively studied only a few questions, and interpreted what little evidence they had in ways that favoured corporate interests. Major flaws in the experimental design were evident, which served to mask rather than reveal the effects of the GM transformation process. Nevertheless, these short, 90-day rat feeding studies did show clear signs of toxicity arising from the GM compared to non-GM equivalent feed.^{51 53} If such signs of toxicity are evident after just 90 days, then clearly, lifelong (2-year) studies are urgently needed.

The seventh sin

Almost all the claims made for GM crops by proponents of the technology are claims about benefits that GM technology will deliver in future.⁹⁰ This is not a new phenomenon – such claims were being made in the late 1990s, when GM crops were first introduced.⁹¹ Claims that GM crops will solve world hunger, or will deliver drought resistant, nitrogen-fixing or nutrient rich crops, are not science but prophecy.
The pro-GM lobby and the media treat these claims as if they are science, but none of them are based on scientific evidence. They are opinions, not science, often expressed by companies or scientists with a strong financial interest in seeing them treated as fact.

Conclusion

To summarise: first, the pro-GM lobby has deliberately conflated opposition to particular commercial products, GM crops, with opposition to science.
Second, the pro-GM lobby has failed to acknowledge our growing understanding of the complexity of gene expression. They have ignored new developments in science which have added complexity and uncertainty to what they initially assumed was a simple process.
Third, the pro-GM lobby invented and interpreted the pseudo-scientific and anti-scientific concept of substantial equivalence, and then defended it as if it had some scientific merit, which it does not.

Fourth, the pro-GM lobby has deliberately prevented independent research into the safety of GM food, by denying the scientists the samples they require to do such work, and has then claimed that there is evidence that GM foods are safe to eat, confusing the absence of evidence of harm with evidence of safety.
Fifth, the relatively small but growing number of scientific studies that have looked at the long term health consequences of eating GM food have raised serious grounds for concern. But instead of following scientific principles and repeating disputed experiments, the pro-GM lobby has only attacked the research and the integrity of the scientists involved.
Sixth, the pro-GM lobby has claimed that the regulatory regimes for GM crops in America and the EU provide scientific proof that GM crops are safe, while in fact these regulatory regimes rely on limited company information, not science. When problems show up even in these limited industry studies, they have been ignored. .
Seventh, the pro-GM lobby presents endless claims of future benefits and performance of GM crops as if these are science rather than prophecies.
When the history of the changes in the public understanding of science and public confidence in science over the last fifteen years comes to be written, I believe that the pro-GM lobby's misuse and abuse of science will be seen to have had a chilling impact. These people, organisations and companies have been responsible for part at least of the sad decline in both public understanding and confidence in science and scientific evidence.
Peter Melchett is Policy Director at the Soil Association. You can contact him via email pmelchett@soilassociation.org

Thanks to: Claire Robinson, GMWatch; Professor Andy Stirling, University of Sussex; Professor Erik Millstone, University of Sussex; and Dr Michael Antoniou, King’s College London School of Medicine, for their comments on the draft of this paper.
This article was first published in Mother Earth, the Soil Association's journal of organic thought and policy. We hope you enjoyed this article, please feel free to share this with your contacts. If you wish to support the production of Mother Earth in future, and receive the latest issue direct to your door, 
Source:   http://www.soilassociation.org/motherearth/viewarticle/articleid/4752/the-pro-gm-lobbys-seven-sins-against-science

Support the Hawaii GMO Justice Coalition - EVICT MONSANTO NOW!

 Evict Monsanto!

• Michelle Schoffro Cook
• January 10, 2013

It’s time to follow the lead of Hawaiians who are working to evict Monsanto from their land…and for good reason. 
 
Monsanto and other corporations have been leasing land from schools for experimentation with genetically-modified seeds and pesticides.  The organization Hawaii GMO Justice has initiated a campaign to tell Kamehameha schools — one of the landowners that is leasing land to Monsanto — to evict the chemical company.  They are selling bumper stickers and hats to raise money to tackle this important issue in Hawaii.
The Hawaii GMO Justice Coalition shared this compelling video (shown on the next page). It presents shocking news about the hijacking of fertile farmland by Monsanto, BASF, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta and other GMO seed and pesticide companies for widescale experimentation of genetically-modified organisms and pesticides.
The video also explains how the University of Hawaii in conjunction with the Department of the Army conducted experiments to test the defoliation effects of well-known carcinogen Agent Orange on the jungles of Kauai during 1967-68.  And which company created the horrible toxin used in Vietnam and for testing in Kauai?  You guessed it:  Monsanto!  The tragic abuse of American citizens has continued in Hawaii.
The video by Hawaii GMO Justice shares the story of Anthony Palazzolo, a former organic farmer in Hawaii, who had to give up his livelihood because the soil and water was so toxic that he became ill from eating the organic produce he was growing.  He explains that his farmland was surrounded by land used for experimentation by the companies mentioned above.

University of Hawaii professor Dr. Hector Valenzuela, Vegetable Crop Specialist, cites 28 different pesticides as a partial list of the pesticides used in Hawaii.  The list includes:  atrazine, Roundup, dimethoate and permethrin.  
On March 2, 2010, The Washington Post shared the news that the atrazine—one of the most widely used pesticides—is turning male frogs female.  It continued to indicate that the frogs were not alone.  A growing body of scientific evidence is showing that it is having the same effects on birds, rats and fish.  Atrazine has since been shown to harm humans as well.  And, that’s just one of the pesticides in widespread use on Hawaii and elsewhere.
Dr. Valenzuela adds that these pesticides don’t just act alone.  They combine to form different toxins for which we have almost no knowledge of the long-term effects on human health and the environment.
Janet Raloff at Science News reported that some of the chemicals can cause genetic deformities and even affect the offspring of rats exposed to the chemicals.
Additionally, in the same way that bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics, insects are becoming resistant to the pesticides that used to kill them.  Valenzuela says that the pesticides only work for a few years but the toxic legacy will last forever.
It’s time to take action.  Join Hawaii.  Evict Monsanto from your land, your household, your community and your body.  Here are some ways you can do that:

• Sign the Care2 petition to bring down Monsanto.
• Support the Hawaii GMO Justice Coalition in their important work to stop GMO farming and experimentation by buying a hat or bumper sticker to “Evict Monsanto!”
• Get informed and stop eating the main GMO crops.  See my article on the Top 6 Frankenfoods for more information.
• Don’t fund the destruction of Mother Earth, its creatures, and humans.  I keep reading the advice of financial advisors mentioned in various newspapers to “invest in Monsanto stock” as it has been growing.  If you have a conscience I urge you to become informed before investing any of your money in Monsanto stock and to find out where your mutual funds are invested too.
• Support organic farmers by purchasing organic as much as possible.
• Grow as much food of your own food from organic and heirloom seed as you can.
• Even if you don’t have land you can grow your own sprouts.  I’ll discuss more about this next week.

Source:  http://www.care2.com/greenliving/evict-monsanto.html?page=2

GMO LABELING NOW THE LAW...IN INDIA WHAT'S HOLDING UP USA LABELING LAW?

India Signs Mandatory GMO Labeling into Law

by Anthony Gucciardi
January 10th, 2013 | Updated 01/10/2013 at 2:04 am

Paving the way for other nations to introduce similar legislation and inform consumers what they’re really putting into their mouths, the labeling of products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within the nation of India is now mandated by law. The country’s Ministry of Consumer Affairsmakes declared in a June 5, 2012 notice that all GMO-containing packaged foods must be labeled by January 1, 2013 or face legal repercussions.
Each package containing GM ingredients will clearly be labeled directly on the prime real estate of the package as ‘GM’. A warning that many heads of organizations and even bodies within the Indian government are praising for its ability to inform individuals as to what they are really feeding their family.

“The labelling will basically help inform the consumer about the presence of GM content in packaged food products,” said B.N.Dixit, Director, Legal Metrology, Department of Consumer Affairs.

In the wake of crippled labeling attempts inside the United States thanks to Monsanto-backed corporate deception, such as phony campaign materials designed to deceive California’s Prop 37 GMO labeling campaign, this is an extremely bold message by India. A message that will likely be picked up by neighboring countries where citizens have been demanding GMO labeling — or even an outright ban. The move also comes after other countries like Poland already took moves to ban Monsanto’s genetically modified maize.
Even states like New Mexico and Washington are now pushing forward with legislation that would make labeling mandatory.

While the labeling declaration is certainly a victory, some Indian experts are saying that it would be much more of a victory for somewhere like the US, where around 90% of food products are pre-packaged or processed. The opposite is true in India, where much of the food available in local markets is whole food items and raw materials. In other words, the Indian citizens still prepare meals by hand in many cases. This means that they are using non-packaged food items like produce that may not be labeled.
Nonetheless, the law allows for an advancement in the lengthy fight against GMOs, which have been linked to a host of serious illnesses ranging from tumor development to infertility.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/india-signs-mandatory-gmo-labeling-into-law/#ixzz2HzP0KpAy