Bunge is excited to introduce Non-GMO Project Verified milled corn ingredients and Non-GMO Project Verified oils at the annual IFT (Institute of Food Technologists, July 17-19) show next week in Chicago. Bunge will also feature its broader collection of non-GMO products, including ancient grains, rice, gluten free breadings, and puffed and expanded snacks, all of which the company is pursuing Non-GMO Project Verification for.

Food companies selling products in the US may soon be required to tell consumers if their goods include genetically modified organisms—better known as GMOs.

by Vandana Shiva

A recent report from the National Academy of Science of The United States, titled "Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values," warns:

“One possible goal of release of a gene-drive modified organism is to cause the extinction of the target species or a drastic reduction in its abundance.”

Gene Drives have been called "mutagenic chain reactions," and are to the biological world what chain reactions are to the nuclear world. The Guardian describes Gene Drives as the "gene bomb."

One of the biggest concerns about the cultivation of genetically modified crops is the rise of superweeds caused by the overuse of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto's best-selling Roundup and other pesticides.

So, in an effort to beat back these herbicide-defying weeds, Monsanto and DuPont have agreed to sell an even stronger weed killer to go with their genetically modified seeds.

Genetically engineered foods must be clearly labelled on food packages in state starting July 1

A new GMO labelling law in Vermont is sending ripples through the North American food industry.

Starting July 1, processed foods sold in the state that contain genetically engineered ingredients must say so on the label.

Similar laws exist in countries across Europe, but for now, genetically modified organisms don't have to be labelled in the rest of the U.S., or in Canada.

David Zuckerman, an organic farmer and Vermont state senator who pushed for the law, said people in his state want to know where their food comes from. The new law will allow them to decide whether or not they want to buy GMO foods.

"With a labelled product, consumers can make that decision," Zuckerman said.

KARL FORSYTH, A SANTA ROSA RESIDENT, IS A VOLUNTEER WITH THE “GMO-FREE SONOMA COUNTY” MOVEMENT

The Close to Home column by Tom Cooke last week had a number of inaccurate assertions (“Let science, humanity inform your GMOs vote,” June 19). I remind Professor Cooke that truth is not a fear tactic.

The Sonoma County Transgenic Contamination Ordinance, which will be on the fall ballot, is simple and clear. It prohibits the cultivation, propagation, raising and growing of genetically engineered organisms in Sonoma County. It protects family and/or organic farms from contamination by genetically engineered plant pollen drift. In addition, it protects from the increased herbicide use inherent in the cultivation of these crops.

Genetically engineered pollen poses a genuine concern for non-GMO and organic farmers, as pollen drift threatens to contaminate unintended crops even with buffer zones.

Gene drives are designed to relentlessly drive a specific genetic trait through an entire species or population – with the potential to reshape entire natural populations and ecosystems, and possibly driving species to extinction. The development of a powerful genome editing tool in 2012, CRISPR/Cas9 has led to recent breakthroughs in gene drive research. Gene-drive modified organisms are on the horizon.

The US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) convened a committee with a broad range of expertise to summarize the scientific discoveries related to gene drives and considerations for their responsible use. The NAS has since released its report (Item 1). Its main conclusion is that gene-drive modified organisms are not ready to be released into the environment and require more research in laboratories and highly controlled field trials to understand the scientific, ethical, regulatory, and social consequences of releasing such organisms. The committee urged caution and has recommended a collaborative, multidisciplinary, and cautionary approach to research on and governance of gene drive technologies.

by Jim Thomas (The Guardian): ‘Gene drives’ seem to be the ultimate high-leverage technology. Yesterday’s report from the US National Academies begun the job of describing what is at stake, but it missed some important questions.

If there is a prize for the fastest emerging tech controversy of the century the ‘gene drive’ may have just won it. In under eighteen months the sci-fi concept of a ‘mutagenic chain reaction’ that can drive a genetic trait through an entire species (and maybe eradicate that species too) has gone from theory to published proof of principle to massively-shared TED talk (apparently an important step these days) to the subject of a US National Academy of Sciences high profile study – complete with committees, hearings, public inputs and a glossy 216 page report release. Previous technology controversies have taken anywhere from a decade to over a century to reach that level of policy attention. So why were Gene Drives put on the turbo track to science academy report status? One word: leverage.

Maui, Hawaii — Maui’s State Department of Transportation just agreed not to spray Monsanto’s RoundUp along roadways. All purchases of the glyphosate-based, carcinogenic weed killer have been halted, according to Maui Mama. What’s more, the department is about to change the signs on all of their spray trucks to say “Certified Organic Herbicide.”

Beyond Pesticides has also agreed to teach county workers how to make the switch from the health-damaging RoundUp chemical applications to a non-toxic solution, FREE OF CHARGE. The county of Maui has yet to take the offer to heart, but with some world-wide support, they could be gently urged to do so.

The National Research Council's ties to the biotech industry and other corporations create conflicts of interest and raise questions about the independence of their work.

05.16.16

The National Research Council (NRC) — the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences — enjoys a reputation as one of the elite scientific bodies in the United States, an independent institution that Congress calls on fro impartial scientific advice about topics like genetically engineered crops (commonly called GMOs). However, the NRC's far-reaching ties to biotechnology companies and other agricultural corporations have created conflicts of interest at every level of the organization, which greatly diminish the independence and integrity of the NRC's scientific work.

Among other conflicts, Food & Water Watch found that the NRC (and its parent organization, the National Academy of Sciences):

- takes millions of dollars in funding from biotechnology companies

- invites sponsors like Monsanto to sit on high-level boards overseeing the NRC’s work

- invites industry-aligned, pro-GMO scientists to author NRC reports

- draws scientific conclusions based on industry science

- operates at times as a private contractor for corporate research.