23 MORE ORGANIZATIONS JUMP INTO MONSANTO LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK!

Threatened by Contamination from Genetically Modified Organisms, Family Farms Amplify Compaint Against Monsanto

NEW YORK - June 1, 2011 - New threats by Monsanto have led to the filing of an amended complaint by the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) in its suit on behalf of family farmers, seed businesses, and organic agricultural organizations challenging Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed.
"Our clients don't want a fight with Monsanto, they merely want to be protected from the threat that they will be contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed and then accused of patent infringement," said PUBPAT Executive Director Daniel B. Ravicher.  "We asked Monsanto to give our clients reassurances they wouldn't do such a thing, and in response Monsanto chose to instead reiterate the same implicit threat to organic agriculture that it has made in the past."
Over the years Monsanto has sued farmers alleging they have stolen the corporation's intellectual property by saving their proprietary seed rather than purchasing new seed each year that would include a "technology fee."  Because pollen, and genetics, can be spread through the wind, or by insects, farmers are vulnerable to having their crops contaminated and then subsequently being sued by Monsanto.
Soon after the March filing of the lawsuit, Monsanto issued a statement saying that they would not assert their patents against farmers who suffer “trace” amounts of transgenic contamination.  In response, and in the hope that the matter could be resolved out of court, PUBPAT attorneys wrote Monsanto’s attorneys asking the company to make its promise legally binding.
The biotechnology giant responded by hiring former solicitor general, Seth P. Waxman, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of WilmerHale. Waxman completely rejected PUBPAT's simple request and instead confirmed that Monsanto may indeed make claims of patent infringement against organic farmers whose fields become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed. (Copies of both the letter written by PUBPAT to Monsanto and the response letter by Waxman can be found at: http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/seed/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint.pdf).

"Monsanto has run roughshod over organic and conventional farmers who have chosen to be sensitive to consumers’ concerns, and marketplace demand, by shunning genetic engineering in their seed purchases and the crops they produce," said Mark A. Kastel, Codirector of The Cornucopia Institute, a co-plaintiff in the suit with over 4,000 members, most of whom are organic farmers.  "Because of Monsanto's massive investments in federal political campaigns, and in lobbying, it's important that an independent judiciary protects citizen-farmers from intimidation."
"Monsanto's letter was a completely empty, indefensible, and self-evident evasion that shows they are only interested in trying to spin propaganda and do not want to take serious steps to resolve the problem they have created for organic and non-transgenic agriculture," said one of the co-plaintiffs in the suit, Don Patterson of Virginia.
"The seriousness of the issues being engaged in this case requires a constructive and socially-acceptable response from the defendant in the public interest," added Maine farmer Jim Gerritsen, President of Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, the lead plaintiff in the suit.  "In the absence of that, we reassert the essential importance of the arguments stated in March and reinforced now by the additional evidence of Monsanto’s intransigence.  Monsanto's utter failure to act reasonably to address our concerns has only reaffirmed the need for our lawsuit."
In addition to supplementing the complaint with Monsanto's most recent actions, PUBPAT announced that a new group of 23 organizations, seed companies, and farms or individual farmers have joined the original plaintiffs in the suit bringing the total number of plaintiffs to 83, comprising 36 organizations, 14 seed companies, and 33 farms and farmers.

###

The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research group, is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community.  Their Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit.  Their web page can be viewed at www.cornucopia.org.  

CONTACT: Cornucopia Institute

Daniel B. Ravicher 212-461-1902
Mark A. Kastel 608-625-2042

EPA UPHOLDS BAN ON DEADLY PESTICIDE!

Supreme Court Rejects Pesticide Case

Decision stands to prohibit use of carbofuran in domestic food production

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   May 31, 2011 1:19 PM   WASHINGTON - May 31 - The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition today to reconsider the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ban on domestic food tolerances for carbofuran, a deadly pesticide used in food production. FMC Corporation, the leading manufacturer of carbofuran, and a group of powerful agribusiness lobbyists including the National Corn Growers Association, have repeatedly challenged a 2009 rule from the Environmental Protection Agency to revoke all food tolerances. EPA has shown that dietary exposure to carbofuran is unsafe for humans. In 2006, EPA announced that all uses of carbofuran should be cancelled because of occupational and ecological risks to humans and wildlife.
The following is a statement from Jason Rylander, senior attorney for Defenders of Wildlife:
“The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case allows EPA’s decision to stand.  The EPA decision confirmed what we’ve been saying for years: carbofuran is a deadly poison that has absolutely no place in our food or the environment. The Court’s action means that, in this case, the health and safety of the American people and our nation’s wildlife have trumped the profits of powerful corporations.
“EPA made the right decision in 2009 to revoke all food tolerances for carbofuran and should take further action to cancel the use of carbofuran altogether. There is absolutely no reason to continue using this substance in the U.S. or anywhere else.
“Carbofuran has killed millions of birds and other wildlife in the U.S. alone for decades. Preventing its use domestically was a critical step, but our job is not finished. Foreign countries still use carbofuran on food imported in the U.S., and in places like Africa, it’s even being used illegally to poison animals like African lions, which Defenders has petitioned the Secretary of the Interior to list as an endangered species. As long as this dangerous pesticide stays in circulation, people and wildlife around the world will remain at risk. We hope this decision influences other nations still using carbofuran to reconsider its use in their country. We are committed to assisting our international conservation partners in putting an end to the use of carbofuran and other dangerous pesticides.”

Background:

In August 2006, EPA published its Interim Re-registration Eligibility Decision and concluded that no uses of carbofuran were eligible for re-registration because of ecological and occupational risks. In response, some uses were voluntarily withdrawn. EPA plans to proceed with cancelling remaining uses through its cancellation process.
On May 15, 2009, EPA issued a final rule revoking all domestic and imported food tolerances for carbofuran, and that rule went into effect at the end of 2009. FMC Corporation, the leading manufacturer of carbofuran, along with powerful lobbying groups for the food industry challenged these decisions in federal court and were successful in getting a federal court to allow some imports containing carbofuran to continue entering the country. FMC then appealed to the Supreme Court to reinstate domestic food tolerances for carbofuran.

###

Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. CONTACT: Defenders of Wildlife

ANOTHER BLOW TO SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE- MEET DR-CAFTA

A Volatile Agenda on Agriculture   

The U.S.-Colombia free trade pact would reinforce a system that leaves farmers and consumers at the mercy of volatile prices and markets.

by Karen Hansen-Kuhn  Published on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 by OtherWords

Barack Obama's trade policy, as embodied by the pending U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement, sadly resembles George W. Bush's blueprint. It promotes export growth and investment at the expense of local economies and resilient food systems. This is unfortunate, not only because it fails to deliver the "21^st-century" trade agenda President Obama promised on the campaign trail, but also because it ignores some of the key lessons from NAFTA and the 2008 global food price crisis.

For decades, the primary problem for agriculture has been low prices, which compel farmers to continue to produce more and more to make up in volume what they lose in falling prices, and to seek ever expanding markets at home and abroad. Cheap imports have flooded developing countries, devastating poor, small-scale farmers, while failing to stabilize incomes for American growers.

Trade policy isn't neutral. It's a specific set of rules that tend to favor specific actors. Rather than learning the lessons of the 2008 food price crisis — that governments need the ability to shield key markets from extreme volatility — this agreement simply replicates the 20^th-century model.

Like NAFTA did for Mexicans, the U.S.-Colombia agreement would subject Colombian farmers to immediate competition from U.S. exports. Duties on 70 percent of U.S. farm exports of wheat, barley, soy, and most processed foods would be eliminated immediately. The deal would also abolish Colombia's "price bands," which kick in to protect local farm goods when prices fall.

While prices are high for now, many Colombian farmers will find it difficult to compete with goods whose prices can vary so dramatically. As in Mexico under NAFTA, tariffs on corn and a few other sensitive products will be phased out over a longer period. In Mexico, NAFTA pushed more than two million farmers out of agriculture. That shows how even a long transition may be inadequate when no real alternatives for rural employment exist. Many of those farmers were compelled to migrate to urban areas or the United States to find work.

The Obama administration says that this trade deal will help the South American nation, citing the Colombian government's proposals to restore lands to people displaced by civil conflicts. Yet there's no assurance that farmers facing competition from U.S. exports or new investments facilitated by expanded trade would be able to stay on their land.

In the wake of the free trade pact among the United States, Central America, and the Dominican Republic known as DR-CAFTA, the non-profit group ActionAid documented numerous cases of Guatemalan farmers who were pressured by palm oil and sugar producers to sell their land to make way for industrial-scale production of a single crop. Many of these farmers had been granted titles in the wake of that country's civil war, only to lose them again when inadequate access to credit and other inputs made it impossible for them to earn a living.

This new trade deal also calls for deregulating foreign investment rules, which could put new pressure on land as mining companies expand operations. Apparently, our trade negotiators aren't heeding the lessons learned from the NAFTA and DR-CAFTA deals.

This export-led model has a downside for U.S. farmers too. Despite rising agricultural exports, the number of small, commercially viable American farms has dropped by 40 percent in the last 25 years. Very small farms serving local markets (and relying on off-farm income) and very large farms have increased substantially.

U.S. farmers, like their Colombian counterparts, need reliable public support and consistent market signals so that they can invest in local, regional, and national food production to feed their communities and their nations. Trade should supplement local food systems, not seek to replace them. The U.S.-Colombia pact would reinforce a system that leaves farmers and consumers at the mercy of volatile prices and markets. Instead, we need a new approach that ensures fair, healthy, and resilient food systems for all.

More than two years into the Obama administration, we're still waiting for a 21^st-century trade policy.

Karen Hansen-Kuhn is International Program Director at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Her work has focused on bringing developing countries' perspectives into public debates on trade, food security and economic policy.

khansenkuhn@iatp.org

ARE THEY SPRAYING THESE CROPS WITH LIQUEFIED LIVESTOCK MANURE FERTILIZERS?

Germany: 365 more sickened in bacterial outbreak

AP – A customer and a seller seen through the window of a street side market shop in Moscow, Russia, on Tuesday, …

By DAVID RISING, Associated Press – Wed Jun 1, 2011 6:25 am ET

BERLIN – The number of people reported sick in Germany from a foodborne bacterial outbreak that has already killed 16 spiked over the last 24 hours, with nearly 100 more people suffering from severe and potentially fatal symptoms, the national disease control center said Wednesday.

Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner said scientists were working nonstop to find the source of the unusual strain of the E. coli bacteria that is believed to have been spread in Europe on tainted vegetables — and where in the long journey from farm to grocery store the contamination occurred.

"Hundreds of tests have been done and the responsible agencies ... have determined that most of the patients who have been sickened ate cucumbers, tomatoes and leaf lettuce and primarily in northern Germany," Aigner said on ARD television. "The states that have conducted the tests must now follow back the delivery path to see how the cucumbers, or tomatoes or lettuce got here."

German authorities initially pointed to a few cucumbers from Spain, but further tests showed that those vegetables, while contaminated, did not cause the outbreak. But officials are still warning all Germans to avoid eating raw cucumbers, tomatoes or lettuce.

E. coli is found in large quantities in the digestive systems of humans, cows and other mammals. It has been responsible for a large number of food contamination outbreaks in a wide variety of countries. In most cases, it causes non-lethal stomach ailments.

But enterohaemorrhagic E.coli, or EHEC, causes more severe symptoms, ranging from bloody diarrhea to the rare hemolytic uremic syndrome.

Germany's national health agency the Robert Koch Institute said 470 people are now suffering from the syndrome, or HUS, in which E. coli infection attacks the kidneys, sometimes causing seizures, strokes and comas. That's up from 373 reported Tuesday.

Germany typically sees a maximum of 50 to 60 HUS cases in a year.

An additional 1,064 cases of EHEC have been reported in Germany since the beginning of May, up from 796 the day before, the Robert Koch Institute said.

The World Health Organization said cases of EHEC have been reported in nine European countries: Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K. All but two cases are either people in Germany, or people who had recently traveled to northern Germany, the organization said.

It's "extraordinary" to see so many cases of the kidney complication from a foodborne illness, said Dr. Robert Tauxe, a foodborne disease expert at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "There has not been such an outbreak before that we know of in the history of public health."

He added that the strain of E. coli in the European outbreak has not been seen in the United States, where there have been several high-profile foodborne outbreaks in recent years, but none with such a high death toll.

There's little precedent in Europe, either. In 1996, an E. coli outbreak in the United Kingdom caused 216 cases and 11 deaths.

The World Health Organization said 86 percent of those sickened in the current outbreak were adults, and two-thirds were women. It said it was unusual that more children weren't affected.

___

Kirsten Grieshaber in Berlin, and Jan Olsen in Copenhagen contributed to this report.

BOYCOTT LAND-O LAKES PRODUCTS: THEY BACK GMO CROPS!

Hay Now — It’s Boycott Time: Land O’Lakes, This Means You!

By Citizens for Safe Food and Feed

Farm Wars

By now you’ve heard how President Obama and his Monsanto Administration have plowed through approvals of three more genetically engineered products, including GE alfalfa.  Well, here’s something else you should know:

To produce its Round-Up Ready Alfalfa seeds, Monsanto partnered with a company called Forage Genetics International, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Land O’Lakes dairy co-op. That’s right, Land O’Lakes stands to make a fortune from polluting our food supply with untested and unlabeled GMOs. 

To protest, you could sign one of the many petitions going around that will likely just be ignored.  But there’s another way to show your disapproval of genetically engineered Round-Up Ready Alfalfa:  Boycott all Land O’Lakes products — its butter, cheese, eggs, speads, margarine, seasonings, creams, cocoa and cappuccino mixes, sour cream and milk.  All of them.

You have the power to economically punish Land O’Lakes — the owner of Forage Genetics, Monsanto’s partner in crime — for its role in polluting the food chain with untested and unlabeled GMOs, increasing the use of toxic glyphosate herbicide, and potentially destroying the organic beef and dairy feed market by loudly refusing to support Land O’Lakes with your dollars.

Tell all your friends to go to all the supermarkets in their area and let the check-out clerks know that they’re boycotting Land O’Lakes products until they are out of the GMO business, loud enough for other shoppers to hear.  And next, stop by the store manager’s desk and tell him about the boycott.

Send Land O’Lakes and other companies a clear message:  HAY you — We’re FED UP with GMOs in our food supply!

And to make sure Land O’Lakes knows why its sales are down, contact its president and CEO Chris Policinski and let him know you won’t be buying Land O’Lakes products anymore because you don’t want genetically engineered food or animal feed:

Chris Policinski
President and CEO
Land O’Lakes
4001 Lexington Avenue
Arden Hills, MN 55126-2998
651/481-2222

270,000 PLAINTIFFS TAKE ON - MONSANTO!!!! Have a Look at who is STANFING UP FOR YOU!

FTCLDF in Suit over Monsanto GMO Seed

Falls Church, Virginia (April 13, 2011) -  On behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed suit on March 29 against Monsanto Company to challenge the chemical giant's patents on genetically modified seed. The organic plaintiffs were forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed, something Monsanto has done to others in the past. The action seeks a ruling that would prohibit Monsanto from suing organic farmers and seed growers if contaminated by Roundup Ready seed.

The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Naomi Buchwald. Plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad array of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it. The plaintiff organizations have over 270,000 members, including thousands of certified organic family farmers. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) is a plaintiff in the suit.

"This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto's transgenic seed should land on their property," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director and Lecturer of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. "It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients." 

Once released into the environment, genetically modified seed contaminates and destroys organic seed for the same crop. For example, soon after Monsanto introduced genetically modified seed for canola, organic canola became virtually extinct as a result of contamination. Organic corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets and alfalfa now face the same fate, as Monsanto has released genetically modified seed for each of those crops, too. Monsanto is developing genetically modified seed for many other crops, thus putting the future of all food, and indeed all agriculture, at stake.    

In the case, PUBPAT is asking Judge Buchwald to declare that if organic farmers are ever contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed, they need not fear also being accused of patent infringement. One reason justifying this result is that Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed are invalid because they don't meet the "usefulness" requirement of patent law, according to PUBPAT's Ravicher, plaintiffs' lead attorney in the case. Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening filing today proves that genetically modified seed has negative economic and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically modified seed - increased production and decreased herbicide use - are false.    

"Some say transgenic seed can coexist with organic seed, but history tells us that's not possible, and it's actually in Monsanto's financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply," said Ravicher. "Monsanto is the same chemical company that previously brought us Agent Orange, DDT, PCB's and other toxins, which they said were safe, but we know are not. Now Monsanto says transgenic seed is safe, but evidence clearly shows it is not." 

"Transgenic seed should not be on the market. They are a threat to the future of farming and consumer freedom of choice," asserted Pete Kennedy, Esq., President of FTCLDF. "Monsanto should not be suing farms whose land the company's products contaminate; Monsanto should be paying them damages." 

PLAINTIFFS

The plaintiffs in the suit represented by PUBPAT are:

Abundant Acres	Adaptive Seeds, LLC
Alba Ranch	Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC
Bryce Stephens	California Cloverleaf Farms
Canadian Organic Growers	Chispas Farms LLC
Chuck Noble	Comstock, Ferre & Co., LLC
Countryside Organics	Cuatro Puertas
Demeter Association, Inc	Donald Wright Patterson, Jr.
Family Farm Defenders Inc.	Family Farmer Seed Cooperative
Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund	FEDCO Seeds Inc.
Food Democracy Now!	Frey Vineyards, Ltd.
Genesis Farm	Global Organic Alliance
Gratitude Gardens	Interlake Forage Seeds Ltd.
Jardin del Alma	Kirschenmann Family Farms Inc.
Koskan Farms	LaRhea Pepper
Levke and Peter Eggers Farm	Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association
Mendocino Organic Network	Midheaven Farms
Mumm's Sprouting Seeds	Nature's Way Farm Ltd.
Navdanya International	North Outback Farm
Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance	Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont
Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont	Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.
Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society	OCIA Research and Education Inc.
Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association	Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc.
Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association	Paul Romero
Philadelphia Community Farm, Inc	Quinella Ranch
Richard Everett Farm, LLC	Ron Gargasz Organic Farms
Rural Vermont	Seedkeepers, LLC
Siskiyou Seeds	Southeast Iowa Organic Association
Southern Exposure Seed Exchange	Sow True Seed
Sustainable Living Systems	T & D Willey Farms
Taylor Farms, Inc.	The Cornucopia Institute
Wild Plum Farm

STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFFS

Many of the plaintiffs made statements upon filing of the suit.

Jim Gerritsen, a family farmer in Maine who raises organic seed and is President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) based in Montrose, Colorado, said, "Today is Independence Day for America. Today we are seeking protection from the Court and putting Monsanto on notice. Monsanto's threats and abuse of family farmers stops here. Monsanto's genetic contamination of organic seed and  organic crops ends now. Americans have the right to choice in the marketplace - to decide what kind of food they will feed their families - and we are taking this action on their behalf to protect that right to  choose. Organic farmers have the right to raise our organic crops for our families and our customers on our farms without the threat of invasion by Monsanto's genetic contamination and without harassment by a reckless polluter. Beginning today, America asserts her right to justice and pure food."    

Dr. Carol Goland, Ph.D., Executive Director of plaintiff Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association (OEFFA) said, "Consumers indicate, overwhelmingly, that they prefer foods made without genetically modified  organisms. Organic farms, by regulation, may not use GMOs, while other farmers forego using them for other reasons. Yet the truth is that we are rapidly approaching the tipping point when we will be unable to  avoid GMOs in our fields and on our plates. That is the inevitable consequence of releasing genetically engineered materials into the environment. To add injury to injury, Monsanto has a history of suing  farmers whose fields have been contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs. On behalf of farmers who must live under this cloud of uncertainty and risk, we are compelled to ask the Court to put an end to this unconscionable business practice."
   
Rose Marie Burroughs of plaintiff California Cloverleaf Farms said, "The devastation caused by GMO contamination is an ecological catastrophe to our world equal to the fall out of nuclear radiation. Nature, farming and health are all being affected by GMO contamination. We must protect our world by protecting our most precious, sacred resource of seed sovereignty. People must have the right to the resources of the earth for our sustenance. We must have the freedom to farm that causes no harm to the environment or to other people. We must protect the environment, farmers' livelihood, public health and people's right to non GMO food contamination."
    
Ed Maltby, Executive Director of plaintiff Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA)said, "It's outrageous that we find ourselves in a situation where the financial burden of GE contamination will fall  on family farmers who have not asked for or contributed to the growth of GE crops. Family farmers will face contamination of their crops by GE seed which will threaten their ability to sell crops as organically  certified or into the rapidly growing 'Buy Local' market where consumers have overwhelmingly declared they do not want any GE crops, and then family farmers may be faced by a lawsuit by Monsanto for patent infringement. We take this action to protect family farms who once again have to bear the consequences of irresponsible actions by Monsanto."
    
David L. Rogers, Policy Advisor for plaintiff NOFA Vermont (Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont) said, "Vermont's farmers have worked hard to meet consumers' growing demand for certified organic and non-GE food. It is of great concern to them  that Monsanto's continuing and irresponsible marketing of GE crops that contaminate non-GE plantings will increasingly place their local and regional markets at risk and threaten their livelihoods." 
  
Dewane Morgan of plaintiff Midheaven Farms in Park Rapids, Minnesota, said, "For organic certification, farmers are required to have a buffer zone around their perimeter fields. Crops harvested from this buffer  zone are not eligible for certification due to potential drift from herbicide and fungicide drift. Buffer zones are useless against pollen drift. Organic, biodynamic, and conventional farmers who grow identity-preserved soybeans, wheat and open-pollinated corn often save seed for replanting the next year. It is illogical that these farmers are liable for cross-pollination contamination."   

Jill Davies, Director of plaintiff Sustainable Living Systems (SLS)in Victor, Montana, said, "The building blocks of life are sacred and should be in the public domain. If scientists want to study and manipulate them for  some supposed common good, fine. Then we must remove the profit motive. The private profit motive corrupts pure science and increasingly precludes democratic participation."    

David Murphy, founder and Executive Director of plaintiff Food Democracy Now! said, "None of Monsanto's original promises regarding genetically modified seeds have come true after 15 years of wide adoption by commodity farmers. Rather than increased yields or less chemical usage, farmers are facing more crop diseases, an onslaught of herbicide-resistant superweeds, and increased costs from additional  herbicide application. Even more appalling is the fact that Monsanto's patented genes can blow onto another farmer's fields and that farmer not only loses significant revenue in the market but is frequently exposed to legal action against them by Monsanto's team of belligerent lawyers. Crop biotechnology has been a miserable failure economically and biologically and now threatens to undermine the basic freedoms that farmers and consumers have enjoyed in our constitutional democracy."

Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for plaintiff The Cornucopia Institute said, "Family-scale farmers desperately need the judiciary branch of our government to balance the power Monsanto is able to wield  in the marketplace and in the courts. Monsanto, and the biotechnology industry, have made great investments in our executive and legislative branches through campaign contributions and powerful lobbyists in Washington. We need to court system to offset this power and protect individual farmers from corporate tyranny. Farmers have saved seeds since the beginning of agriculture by our species. It is outrageous that one corporate entity, through the trespass of what they refer to as their 'technology,' can intimidate and run roughshod over family farmers in this country. It should be the responsibility of Monsanto, and farmers licensing their technology, to ensure that genetically engineered DNA does not trespass onto neighboring farmland. It is outrageous, that through no fault of their own, farmers are being  intimidated into not saving seed for fear that they will be doggedly pursued through the court system and potentially bankrupted." 

CONTACT

Daniel B. Ravicher, Executive Director  
PUBLIC PATENT FOUNDATION  
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 
Phone:  (212) 545-5337       
Email:   press@pubpat.org

GMO TOXINS GROW IN THE HUMAN GUT! WATCH VIDEO!

Watch this two minute video, Double Dipping Danger, produced by Alex Bogusky, and then read about new evidence below showing even more harm from genetically modified foods. Click HERE to play.

Dangerous Toxins From Genetically Modified Plants Found in Women and Fetuses

by Jeffrey M. Smith

When U.S. regulators approved Monsanto's genetically modified "Bt" corn, they knew it would add a deadly poison into our food supply. That's what it was designed to do. The corn's DNA is equipped with a gene from soil bacteria called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that produces the Bt-toxin. It's a pesticide; it breaks open the stomach of certain insects and kills them.

But Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) swore up and down that it was only insects that would be hurt. The Bt-toxin, they claimed, would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and not have any impact on all of us trusting corn-eating consumers.

Oops. A study just proved them wrong.

Doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found the corn's Bt-toxin in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant women. (Specifically, the toxin was identified in 93% of 30 pregnant women, 80% of umbilical blood in their babies, and 67% of 39 non-pregnant women.) The study has been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology.

According to the UK Daily Mail, this study, which "appears to blow a hole in" safety claims, "has triggered calls for a ban on imports and a total overhaul of the safety regime for genetically modified (GM) crops and food." Organizations from England to New Zealand are now calling for investigations and for GM crops to be halted due to the serious implications of this finding.

Links to allergies, auto-immune disease, and other disorders

There's already plenty of evidence that the Bt-toxin produced in GM corn and cotton plants is toxic to humans and mammals and triggers immune system responses. The fact that it flows through our blood supply, and that is passes through the placenta into fetuses, may help explain the rise in many disorders in the US since Bt crop varieties were first introduced in 1996.

In government-sponsored research in Italy, mice fed Monsanto's Bt corn showed a wide range of immune responses. Their elevated IgE and IgG antibodies, for example, are typically associated with allergies and infections. The mice had an increase in cytokines, which are associated with "allergic and inflammatory responses." The specific cytokines (interleukins) that were elevated are also higher in humans who suffer from a wide range of disorders, from arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, to MS and cancer (see chart).

Elevated interleukins	Associations
IL-6	Rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, various types of cancer (multiple myeloma and prostate cancer)
IL-13	Allergy, allergic rhinitis, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease)
MIP-1b	Autoimmune disease and colitis.
IL-12p70	Inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis

The young mice in the study also had elevated T cells (gamma delta), which are increased in people with asthma, and in children with food allergies, juvenile arthritis, and connective tissue diseases. The Bt corn that was fed to these mice, MON 810, produced the same Bt-toxin that was found in the blood of women and fetuses.

When rats were fed another of Monsanto's Bt corn varieties called MON 863, their immune systems were also activated, showing higher numbers of basophils, lymphocytes, and white blood cells. These can indicate possible allergies, infections, toxins, and various disease states including cancer. There were also signs of toxicity in the liver and kidneys.

Natural Bt is dangerous

Farmers have used Bt-toxin from soil bacteria as a natural pesticide for years. But they spray it on plants, where it washes off and biodegrades in sunlight. The GM version is built-in; every plant cell has its own spray bottle. The toxin doesn't wash off; it's consumed. Furthermore, the plant-produced version of the poison is thousands of times more concentrated than the spray; is designed to be even more toxic; and has properties of known allergens—it actually fails the World Health Organization's allergen screening tests.

The biotech companies ignore the substantial difference between the GM toxin and the natural bacteria version, and boldly claim that since the natural spray has a history of safe use in agriculture, it's therefore OK to put the poison directly into our food. But even this claim of safe use of Bt spray ignores peer-reviewed studies showing just the opposite.

When natural Bt-toxin was fed to mice, they had tissue damage, immune responses as powerful as cholera toxin, and even started reacting to other foods that were formerly harmless. Farm workers exposed to Bt also showed immune responses. The EPA's own expert Scientific Advisory Panel said that these mouse and farm worker studies "suggest that Bt proteins could act as antigenic and allergenic sources."But the EPA ignored the warnings. They also overlooked studies showing that about 500 people in Washington state and Vancouver showed allergic and flu-like symptoms when they were exposed to the spray when it was used to kill gypsy moths.

Bt cotton linked to human allergies, animal deaths

Indian farm workers are suffering from rashes and itching and other symptoms after coming into contact with Bt cotton.

Now thousands of Indian farm laborers are suffering from the same allergic and flu-like symptoms as those in the Pacific Northwest simply from handling genetically engineered cotton plants that produce Bt-toxin. According to reports and records from doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies, as well as numerous investigative reports and case studies, workers are struggling with constant itching and rashes; some take antihistamines every day in order to go to work.

It gets worse.

All thirteen buffalo of a small Indian village died after grazing for a single day on Bt cotton plants.

When they allow livestock to graze on the Bt cotton plants after harvest, thousands of sheep, goats, and buffalo died. Numerous others got sick. I visited one village where for seven to eight years they allowed their buffalo to graze on natural cotton plants without incident. But on January 3rd, 2008, they allowed their 13 buffalo to graze on Bt cotton plants for the first time. After just one day's exposure, all died. The village also lost 26 goats and sheep.

One small study in Andhra Pradesh reported that all six sheep that grazed on Bt cotton plants died within a month, while the three controls fed natural cotton plants showed no adverse symptoms.

Living pesticide factories inside us?

Getting back to the Bt-toxin now circulating in the blood of North American adults and newborns—how did it get there? The study authors speculate that it was consumed in the normal diet of the Canadian middle class. They even suggest that the toxin may have come from eating meat from animals fed Bt corn—as most livestock are.

I'd like to speculate on another possible source. But I warn you, it's not pretty.

The only human feeding study every published on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was conducted on Roundup Ready soybeans. Here's their back story: Scientists found bacteria growing in a chemical waste dump near their factory, surviving the presence of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. The herbicide normally kills bacteria, but this organism had some special gene that allowed it to survive. So Monsanto scientists figured, "Let's put it into the food supply!"

By forcing that genes from that bacterium into soybean plants' DNA, the plants then survive an otherwise deadly dose of Roundup herbicide—hence the name Roundup Ready.

In the human study, some of the subjects were found to have Roundup Ready gut bacteria! This means that sometime in the past, from eating one or more meals of GM soybeans, the gene that had been discovered in the chemical waste dump and forced into the soy, had transferred into the DNA of bacteria living inside their intestines—and continued to function. That means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have dangerous GM proteins produced continuously inside of us.

When the results of the study emerged, the funding from the pro-GMO UK government mysteriously dried up, so they were not able to see if the same type of gene transfer happens with Bt genes from, say, corn chips. If it does, it means that eating Bt corn might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories—continually manufacturing Bt-toxin from within our digestive systems.

I don't know of a test that can confirm that this is happening, but the Canada study may be showing the results—where Bt-toxins are found in the blood of a very high percentage of people.

If the "living pesticide factory" hypothesis is correct, we might speculate even further. Bt-toxin breaks open the stomach of insects. Could it similarly be damaging the integrity of our digestive tracts? The biotech companies insist that Bt-toxin doesn't bind or interact with the intestinal walls of mammals, and therefore humans. But here too they ignore peer-reviewed published evidence showing that Bt-toxin does bind with mouse small intestines and with intestinal tissue from rhesus monkeys. In the former study, they even found "changes in the electrophysiological properties" of the organ after the Bt-toxin came into contact.

If Bt-toxins were causing leaky gut syndrome in newborns, the passage of undigested foods and toxins into the blood from the intestines could be devastating. Scientists speculate that it may lead to autoimmune diseases and food allergies. Furthermore, since the blood-brain barrier is not developed in newborns, toxins may enter the brain causing serious cognitive problems. Some healthcare practitioners and scientists are convinced that this is the apparent mechanism for autism.

Thus, if Bt genes were colonizing the bacteria living in the digestive tract of North Americans, we might see an increase in gastrointestinal problems, autoimmune diseases, food allergies, and childhood learning disorders—since 1996 when Bt crops came on the market. Physicians have told me that they indeed are seeing such an increase.

The discovery of Bt-toxin in our blood does not confirm all this speculation, but it does provide food for thought. And hopefully, that food is non-GMO.

Our Institute for Responsible Technology joins other organizations worldwide calling for an immediate ban on GM food crops, and the commencement of rigorous independent scientific research on the safety of GMOs in general, and Bt-toxin in particular.

Action Alert: While we work for a ban on GMOs, in the mean time click here to sign a petition for President Obama to require labeling.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, author of the #1 international bestselling book on GMOs, Seeds of Deception, and of Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. To avoid GMOs, which is the advice of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

For references to this blog, go to: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/1412