"GM CROPS: BIGGEST ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER OF ALL TIME" - Prince Charles

Charles in GM 'disaster' warning

Prince Charles has his own organic farm at his Gloucestershire estate

GM crops were damaging Earth's soil and were an experiment "gone seriously wrong", he told the Daily Telegraph.Companies developing genetically modified crops risk creating the biggest environmental disaster "of all time", Prince Charles has warned.

A future reliance on corporations to mass-produce food would drive millions of farmers off their land, he said.

The government said it welcomed all voices in the "important" debate over the future potential role of GM crops.

However, Dr Julian Little, chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, said he was "disappointed" by the Prince's comments because "they do not seem to be based on any solid evidence".

"Our experience from over 10 years of GM cultivation shows that GM technology has been found to deliver real environmental and economic benefits," he said.

Mr Little added: "At a time when demand for food and fuel is rising and in the face of growing environmental challenges, we need to find ways to feed an ever-increasing global population."

FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME (AUDIO)
EMP v.3.1.0.r749603_749269_749444_6
More from Today programme

BBC royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said the Prince's "robust" comments were "likely to rankle with the government", which has given the go-ahead to a number of GM crop trials in the UK since 2000.

"Even for a prince who's a long-established champion of organic farming and critic of GM crops, these are comments which verge on the extreme," our correspondent said.

Prince Charles told the newspaper that huge multi-national corporations involved in developing GM foods were conducting a "gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong".

Relying on "gigantic corporations" for food would end in "absolute disaster", he warned.

"That would be the absolute destruction of everything... and the classic way of ensuring there is no food in the future."

What should be being debated was "food security not food production", he said.

He said GM developers might think they would be successful by having "one form of clever genetic engineering after another", but he believed "that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time".

If they think this is the way to go we will end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land    Prince Charles


Prince Charles, who has an organic farm on his Highgrove estate in Gloucestershire, said relying on big corporations for the mass production of food would not only threaten future food supplies but also force smaller producers out of business.

"If they think this is the way to go, we will end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness," he said.

The prince also told the Telegraph he hoped to see more family-run co-operative farms, with producers working with nature and not against it.

The Prince's comments come at a time of rising world food prices and food shortages.

The biotech industry says that GM technology can help combat world hunger and poverty by delivering higher yields from crops and also reduce the use of pesticides.

'Untenable'

In June, Environment Minister Phil Woolas said the government was ready to argue for a greater role for the technology.

But green groups and aid agencies have doubts about GM technology's effectiveness in tackling world hunger and have concerns about the long-term environmental impact.

Responding to the prince's comments, a spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "Safety will always be our top priority on this issue."

Anti-monarchy Campaign group Republic said: "Prince Charles is quickly making his position as heir to the throne untenable with his meddling in politics."


Page last updated at 11:27 GMT, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 12:27 UK


Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/7557644.stm

NYT: FARMERS PUSH FOR GE FOOD LABELS

The Push to Label Genetically Modified Products

By AAMENA AHMEDMARCH 22, 2014

Photo

Gerald Cole, an organic farmer in Taylor, Tex., said supporters of G.M.O. labeling could not compete with the lobbying of big agribusinesses.CreditLeslie Boorhem-Stephenson for The Texas Tribune

Share This Page

When Eric Herm heard in 2005 that genetically modified cottonseeds were the latest innovation on the market, he thought he should plant the crop on his family farm near Lubbock, Tex.

“I was like, ‘What’s so bad about this,’ ” he said of the seeds, which are a cheaper way to help crops resist weed and insect damage. “We’re saving money and labor.”

After learning that the “seeds are injected with the genes of herbicides and pesticides,” Mr. Herm became critical of the product. “I didn’t want to be consuming that,” he said. “And neither would you.”

Now, Mr. Herm is advocating a requirement to include warning labels on consumer products with genetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.’s. He is among a small group of farmers and environmental advocates pushing for the labeling of G.M.O. products in Texas. But the push is getting little support from the Republican-dominated state leadership or from major agribusinesses.

“I haven’t had a single constituent mention support for G.M.O. labeling to me,” said State Representative Drew Springer, a Republican member of the House Agriculture and Livestock Committee. Even if a measure were introduced, he added, it would face a difficult road in the Republican-led Legislature.

Continue reading the main storyMr. Herm said it was a struggle to get people’s attention. “Where I live, 90 percent of the people were looking at me like I was saying the aliens are coming,” he said.

G.M.O. products, which are made from planting seeds with engineered DNA, make up about 90 percent of cash crops like cotton, corn and soybeans nationwide, according to the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, which supports labeling. The United States Food and Drug Administration also supports labeling but has said that it should be voluntary because foods with G.M.O.’s are safe.

Maine and Connecticut require G.M.O. products to be labeled, and 26 other states have considered legislation. In Texas, there has been no such proposal, though interest has grown. Austin-based Whole Foods Market (a corporate sponsor of The Texas Tribune) announced that it would label products with genetically modified ingredients by 2018.

Most farmers oppose G.M.O. labeling because it brings unnecessary attention to the product, which could slow sales, said Gene Hall, a spokesman for the Texas Farm Bureau, which represents agricultural producers across Texas, including large agribusinesses. (The Texas Farm Bureau has been a corporate sponsor of The Texas Tribune.)

“We don’t need to label something that is absolutely safe,” Mr. Hall said.

But activists say the issue is about keeping consumers informed.

“In the U.S., we don’t label dangerous foods — we take it off the marketplace,” said Colin O’Neil, the director of government affairs for the Center for Food Safety. “We’re not saying these products are dangerous, either. We’re just saying consumers have the right to know.”

Some labeling proponents say agribusinesses have lobbied against their efforts. “For a long time, these agribusinesses have been incredibly powerful in keeping G.M.O. labeling out of the Legislature,” said Sara Smith, program director of the nonprofit Texas Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy organization.

Organic farmers like Mr. Herm and Gerald Cole of Taylor, Tex., who support G.M.O. labeling, said their smaller numbers were at a disadvantage against food conglomerates.

“They can lobby Congress for their best interest,” Mr. Cole said. “We just can’t.”

Mr. Hall said he was unaware of the millions spent on lobbying, but added: “There is nothing wrong with it. We’re opposed to labeling, and we’re not afraid to say so.”

aahmed@texastribune.org

Source:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/us/the-push-to-label-genetically-modified-products.html?_r=0

Bt (GE/GMO) CORN - DISASTROUS FOR FARMERS AND ECOSYSTEMS

Voracious Worm Evolves to Eat Biotech Corn Engineered to Kill It

• BY BRANDON KEIM
• 03.17.14
• 3:41 PM

Corn rootworm on the roots of a corn plant. Image: Sarah Zukoff/Flickr

One of agricultural biotechnology’s great success stories may become a cautionary tale of how short-sighted mismanagement can squander the benefits of genetic modification.

After years of predicting it would happen — and after years of having their suggestions largely ignored by companies, farmers and regulators — scientists have documented the rapid evolution of corn rootworms that are resistant to Bt corn.

Until Bt corn was genetically altered to be poisonous to the pests, rootworms used to cause billions of dollars in damage to U.S. crops. Named for the pesticidal toxin-producing Bacillus thuringiensis gene it contains, Bt corn now accounts for three-quarters of the U.S. corn crop. The vulnerability of this corn could be disastrous for farmers and the environment.

“Unless management practices change, it’s only going to get worse,” said Aaron Gassmann, an Iowa State University entomologist and co-author of a March 17 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study describing rootworm resistance. “There needs to be a fundamental change in how the technology is used.”

First planted in 1996, Bt corn quickly became hugely popular among U.S. farmers. Within a few years, populations of rootworms and corn borers, another common corn pest, had plummeted across the midwest. Yields rose and farmers reduced their use of conventional insecticides that cause more ecological damage than the Bt toxin.

By the turn of the millennium, however, scientists who study the evolution of insecticide resistance werewarning of imminent problems. Any rootworm that could survive Bt exposures would have a wide-open field in which to reproduce; unless the crop was carefully managed, resistance would quickly emerge.

Key to effective management, said the scientists, were refuges set aside and planted with non-Bt corn. Within these fields, rootworms would remain susceptible to the Bt toxin. By mating with any Bt-resistant worms that chanced to evolve in neighboring fields, they’d prevent resistance from building up in the gene pool.

But the scientists’ own recommendations — an advisory panel convened in 2002 by the EPA suggested that a full 50 percent of each corn farmer’s fields be devoted to these non-Bt refuges — were resisted by seed companies and eventually the EPA itself, which set voluntary refuge guidelines at between 5 and 20 percent. Many farmers didn’t even follow those recommendations.

Fast forward to 2009, when Gassmann responded to reports of extensive rootworm damage in Bt cornfields in northeast Iowa. Populations there had become resistant to one of the three Bt corn varieties. (Each variety produces a different type of Bt toxin.) He described that resistance in a 2011 study; around the same time, reports of rootworm-damaged Bt corn came in from parts of Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota. These didn’t represent a single outbreak, but rather the emergence, again and again, of resistance.

'A widespread increase in trait failure maybe just around the corner.'

In the new paper, Gassmann describes further incidents of Bt resistance in other parts of Iowa. He also found rootworms resistant to a second variety of Bt corn. Moreover, being resistant to one variety heightened the chances of resistance to another. That means corn engineered to produce multiple Bt toxins — so-called stacked varieties — won’t do much to slow the evolution of rootworm resistance, as was originally hoped.

Farmers likely won’t stop using Bt corn, as it’s still effective against other pests — but as rootworms become more resistant, said Gassmann, farmers will turn to insecticides, thus increasing their costs and losing the ecological benefits originally gained by using Bt corn. As entomologists concerned by rootworm resistance wrote to the EPA in 2012, “When insecticides overlay transgenic technology, the economic and environmental advantages of rootworm-­protected corn quickly disappear.”

Entomologist Bruce Tabashnik of the University of Arizona called Bt resistance “an increasingly serious problem,” and said that refuge sizes need to be increased dramatically and immediately. He and other scientists have pushed the EPA to double current refuge requirements, but so far without success.

“Biotech companies have successfully lobbied EPA for major reductions in refuge requirements,” said Tabashnik.

Entomologist Elson Shields of Cornell University agrees. “Resistance was caused because the farmers did not plant the required refuges and the companies did not enforce the planting of refuges,” said Shields, who has written that “a widespread increase in trait failure may be just around the corner.”

In addition to increasing refuge sizes, farmers also need to vary the crops planted on their fields, rather than planting corn season after season, said Gassmann. Breaks in the corn cycle naturally disrupt rootworm populations, but the approach fell from favor as the high price of corn made continuous planting appealing. “Continuous corn is the perfect habitat for rootworm,” said Gassmann.

Shields also lamented the difficulty he and other academic scientists long experienced when trying to study Bt corn. Until 2010, after organized objections by entomologists at major agricultural universities forced seed companies to allow outside researchers to study Bt corn, the crop was largely off-limits. Had that not been the case, said Shields, resistance could have been detected even earlier, and perhaps stalled before it threatened to become such a problem.

“Once we had legal access, resistance was documented in a year,” Shields said. “We were seeing failures earlier but were not allowed to test for resistance.”

There’s a lesson to be learned for future crop traits, Shields said. Rootworm resistance was expected from the outset, but the Bt seed industry, seeking to maximize short-term profits, ignored outside scientists. The next pest-fighting trait “will fall under the same pressure,” said Shields, “and the insect will win. Always bet on the insect if there is not a smart deployment of the trait.”

Brandon is a Wired Science reporter and freelance journalist. Based in Brooklyn, New York and sometimes Bangor, Maine, he's fascinated with science, culture, history and nature.

SOURCE:  http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/?utm_content=buffere1f73&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer  

SEEDS - INTRODUCING THEIR BILL OF RIGHTS

Genetically Engineered Food Foes Promote ‘Bill Of Rights’ For Seeds

March 20, 2014 11:58 AM

A vendor picks up corn at her stall in a market in Beijing. China has approved genetically modified strains of corn and rice. (Eter Parks/AFP/Getty Images)

BRISBANE (CBS SF) — A local artist joined city officials in Brisbane Wednesday evening to
introduce an art exhibit and “Bill of Rights for Seeds” in an effort to bring attention to the proliferation of genetically engineered food and people’s rights to define their own food systems.

Mayor Clarke Conway was set to present the seed bill of rights at a public reception from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at City Hall as part of an unveiling of an art exhibit by Brisbane artist Beth Grossman.

Grossman said she was inspired by the constitutions of Bolivia and Ecuador to create the “Bill of Rights for Seeds,” which lays out measures that cities and other governments can take to better protect the environment and to be aware of the potential dangers of genetically engineered foods,
also known as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

According to the Sierra Club, genetically engineered foods could create new allergens and toxins and spread harmful traits to non-GMO crops, and the overuse of genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops has prompted more herbicide use and herbicide-resistant plants.

“The overriding problem is just that we don’t know what’s going to happen when genetically engineered seeds start to germinate in the future,” Grossman said.

She also cited the disproportionate level of control over the world’s food systems by only a handful of biotechnology corporations such as Monsanto.

The ‘bill of rights’ is written in ink on seed bags in quill ink.

“It’s a literal bill of rights for seeds but it’s also more metaphorical in the sense that we as humans need to consider ourselves stewards of all of the natural organisms in the world,” Grossman said. “This is my way of saying, ‘How can we make sure we care and protect them?’” she said.

Supporters of genetically modified foods point out the increased yields and production of the foods can help stop famine and improve the food supply, adding modified foods are submitted to strict health testing by the FDA, USDA, and/or the EPA.

Monsanto responds to critics, “Biotech crops undergo more testing and oversight before commercialization than any other agricultural products, including conventional (or non-biotech) crops.”

The artist said her latest project is a way to “bring up all these issues and get a conversation going about it.”

TM and © Copyright 2014 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2014 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Bay City News Service contributed to this report.

SOURCE:  http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/03/20/genetically-engineered-food-foes-promote-bill-of-rights-for-seeds/

SLEEPING THROUGH HONOLULU GMO LABELING HEARINGS

Hawaii GMO Labeling Bill Briefly Revived In State Legislature

  | by  CATHY BUSSEWITZ

Posted: 03/21/2014 12:29 pm EDT Updated: 03/21/2014 12:59 pm EDT

Print Article

HONOLULU (AP) — An effort to require labels on genetically modified foods in Hawaii was brought back to life in the state Legislature, but it died in committee on Thursday almost as quickly as it was revived.

Representative Jessica Wooley, chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee, gutted an agriculture bill to replace it with the GMO-labeling requirements.

Wooley, D-Kaneohe, was transparent about the fact that she had drafted a "gut-and-replace" bill, a legislative maneuver disdained by government watchdog groups like Common Cause. "That is one prerogative of the chair if we believe there is an issue that needs to be heard," she said.

Supporters told the committee that Hawaii residents have the right to know what's going into their foods.

"As a farmer and a consumer, I want to know if my food has been modified," said Robert Petricci, a representative of Puna Pono Alliance, a group that advocates for sustainable, healthy policies and has more than 1,800 members. "At present it's almost impossible to know what's GMO free."

Carrie Martell, a mother who lives on the North Shore of Oahu, said her son suffered from rashes and temper tantrums but didn't test positive for any allergies. When she stripped genetically modified foods from his diet, his episodes stopped, she said.

But some of her Wooley's fellow committee members weren't pleased that the bill was amended so quickly, and they challenged the way the bill was written, questioning how the state would enforce labeling laws.

Rep. Isaac Choy, D-Manoa, asked exactly how the state would figure out if a food had been mislabeled.

"From an enforcement standpoint, unless we have the entire genome of the plant, we won't be able to test," said Gary Gill, deputy director at the Hawaii Department of Health.

"We're going to pass a law that has no enforcement at all?" Choy asked.

"If we want to try to move this forward, we cannot burden the state agencies with the enforcement aspect," Wooley replied.

Members of the committee continued to challenge state representatives, Kauai County Councilman Gary Hooser and each other to hash out the mechanics of the bill, until Wooley called a recess to reprimand committee members, saying they were verbally attacking her.

Eventually, Wooley deferred the bill indefinitely, so it's out of consideration for this legislative session unless an unusual effort is made to bring it back.

"I felt like they were sleeping through our testimony and just throwing up red herrings," Martell said after the decision. "I feel sad."

SOURCE:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/21/hawaii-gmo-labeling-bill_n_5007927.html

NAPA RESOLUTION CITES: "GMO FOODS...REACH CONSUMERS WITHOUT PRE-MARKET TESTING"

Napa food council endorses GMO food labeling

RECOMMENDATION GOES TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

1

Print Email

16 hours ago  •  PETER JENSEN

(5) Comments

Napa County’s Local Food Advisory Council has thrown its support behind labeling foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The council voted Wednesday to support a resolution advocating that federal and state regulators require GMO foods to carry labels, which will now go to the Napa County Board of Supervisors.

The councilmembers stopped short of recommending support for a bill in the California Legislature from Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, that would require GMO labeling, saying they’ll need to read and review the bill’s text before taking a stance on it.

Councilmembers voted unanimously on the resolution with little discussion, although community supporters of GMO labeling advocated on its behalf. No one spoke in opposition to labeling or the resolution.

The 15-member council is made up of local citizens and elected officials interested in promoting production and consumption of locally grown and made foods.

Napa City Councilwoman Juliana Inman, a member of the advisory council, said it was the right group to weigh in on the GMO debate. “I think it’s just the kind of voice that we should have for the county,” she said.

The Napa County Democratic Central Committee also supported the resolution, saying it’s needed to give consumers a choice of whether to buy GMO foods.

“We should certainly know whether a food has been genetically engineered,” said Conchita Marusich, local vice chairwoman, who read from a letter on behalf of the committee. “The time has come for consumers, not corporations, to decide what kinds of food we get to eat.”

The resolution was drafted by a subcommittee of the council, and was narrowly focused on labeling without straying too far into the debate over the safety of GMO foods. It did state that GMO foods are allowed to reach consumers without pre-market safety tastes.

“We tried to make it very simple,” said council chairman Mike Cromwell. “We tried to make it very basic.”

Advocates are also looking for Napa Valley cities to support the resolution.

Beth Mattei, a member of the subcommittee, said labeling wouldn’t impact farmers or grapegrowers in Napa County, as alcohol would have an exemption from the proposed legislation.

“Labeling would allow consumers to support the kinds of crops they want to support,” Mattei said.

Yountville resident Chip Bouril urged the councilmembers to support the resolution.

“It’s about local food choice and it’s about local food quality,” Bouril said. “You can provide a voice that’s very much needed in this political debate.”

Source:  http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/napa-food-council-endorses-gmo-food-labeling/article_ca5d85d8-b18d-11e3-bc43-001a4bcf887a.html

SACRAMENTO FOOD CO-OP GOES ALL NON-GMO

Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op Goes GMO Free!

by JILLYGIRL on AUGUST 21, 2013 · LEAVE A COMMENT

Exciting News!  Our local Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op will no longer accept new non-organic products that include GMO high-risk items (corn, soy, canola, cotton, alfalfa and sugar beets) or their derivatives in their ingredient list, unless the products have been certified to be GMO-free by the Non-GMO Project, or vendors can provide a detailed description of measure taken to avoid GMO contamination.

Animal products (e.g. meat, dairy, eggs) and body care products are excluded from this policy at this time, although the Co-op is committed to offering Non-GMO Verified and Organic products in these categories as well.

The Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op, the National Cooperative Grocers Association, and many other food co-ops across the country are working to inform consumers about what is in their food; in the meantime, the Co-op continues its commitment to providing, whenever possible, at least one product in each food category that is certified by a third party to be organically grown.

The number of Non-GMO Verified products is growing each month – over 1,700 verified products are currently on Co-op shelves, identified with special signage.

To the support the co-op, shop with them at 1900 Alhambra Blvd in Midtown Sacramento • www.sacfoodcoop.com

Side Note: 100% of the Co-op’s fresh produce is organic, Non-GMO, and sourced as local as possible to the Sacramento Region!

Source:  http://www.ilovewellbeing.com/