Articles

By Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Reports

TIME AND again, national surveys indicate that upwards of 90 percent of consumers want foods produced using genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be labeled as such — in fact, a recent Consumer Reports survey placed the number at 92 percent. Of course, the right of everyone to know what they are eating is largely self-evident. But, from a scientific standpoint, is genetically engineered food really different enough to warrant a special label?

More than 100 groups representing over 5 million Nigerians, comprising of farmers, faith-based organisations, civil society groups, students and local community groups, are vehemently opposing Monsanto’s attempts to introduce genetically modified (GM) cotton and maize into Nigeria’s food and farming systems. In written objections submitted to the biosafety regulators, the groups have cited numerous serious health and environmental concerns and the failure of these crops especially GM cotton in Africa.

Monsanto Agricultural Nigeria Limited has applied to the National Biosafety Management Agency (NABMA) for the environmental release and placing in the market in Zaria and surrounding towns of GM cotton (Bt cotton, event MON 15985). A further application isfor the confined field trial (CFT) of two GM maize varieties (NK603 and stacked event MON 89034 x NK603) in multiple locations in Nigeria.

When communities come together to build back soil and replace harsh chemicals with biology, they are very successful and create lasting solutions.

In 2007, the United States agricultural industry spent over 7.8 billion dollars on pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides combined. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman is one of the experts leading the movement against the widespread use of pesticides. She is a senior scientist and director of the Grassroots Science Program at the Pesticide Action Network (PAN). She is also a graduate of Yale and Cornell Universities with degrees in women’s studies and ecology and evolutionary biology.

It’s been a heady time for advocates of genetically modified food labeling like Oakland’s Gary Ruskin.

Working out of the Rockridge studio apartment he shares with his daughter, Ruskin is co-director of the consumer group U.S. Right to Know. Back in 2012, he was campaign manager for the California GMO labeling ballot initiative, Proposition 37, which ultimately didn’t pass. But in recent weeks, the landscape has shifted dramatically in his movement’s favor.

First, the Senate blocked a controversial measure that would have prevented states from passing initiatives like Prop. 37, such as the GMO labeling law due to roll out July 1 in Vermont. Days later, General Mills announced it would voluntarily add GMO labels to all of its products; fellow industrial food giants Mars, Kellogg Co. and Conagra quickly followed suit, even though those companies have spent millions to fight such labeling.

“Their coalition is fracturing,” Ruskin said. “The customer is always right, and it’s time for the food industry to recognize that.”

If we act, we can stop the Big Six from becoming the Titanic Three.

As ETC first warned in May[i] last year and again in February[ii] this year, the pressure of two mergers among the Big Six Gene Giants would make a third merger inevitable. In the last few days the business media have reported that Monsanto is in separate talks with Bayer and BASF – the two German giants among agricultural input companies. While anti-competition regulators are fussing about the hook up of DuPont with Dow and of Syngenta with Chem China, Monsanto urgently needs to make a match. They hope that if regulators let the other two deals go through, they won’t be able to deny Monsanto a chance to even the score.

TORONTO — Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have approved a genetically engineered potato for sale, said a U.S.-based company on Monday in announcing that its non-browning spuds could be in Canadian supermarkets by Thanksgiving.

J.R. Simplot Company was notified by both agencies in letters dated March 18 that it could sell its potatoes — which purportedly are less likely to bruise or turn brown when cut — to consumers or for livestock consumption.

Spanish initiatives join growing list of bans and restrictions across the world

A number of towns and regions in Spain have agreed to ban glyphosate herbicides in public areas, according to Kistiñe Garcia of the Spanish NGO, Ecologistas en Acción.

The Spanish towns and regions join a long list of local and national authorities around the world that have restricted or banned glyphosate.

Kistiñe Garcia cautions that while the Spanish towns and regions have taken the decision to ban glyphosate, it will take them some time to substitute alternatives and phase it out completely.

The EU Commission should not renew the approval of glyphosate as long as concerns remain about its carcinogenicity, said MEPs

Boulder County Commissioners direct staff to develop a plan for transitioning county-owned agricultural land away from growing genetically engineered crops

The commissioners deliberated their decision after considering a vast body of public comments and a recommendation from the open space citizen advisory committee on whether to continue allowing GE crops on a portion of county-owned agricultural lands.

Another skirmish in the global battle over GMOs has broken out — this time at Iowa State University. Recently, a coalition of students delivered a petition with 57,309 signatures to ISU’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences protesting an upcoming human feeding trial of genetically engineered (GE) bananas. The petition, addressed to the college and The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, was simultaneously delivered to by AGRA Watch to the Gates Foundation headquarters in Seattle. If the experiment takes place, twelve female ISU students will be paid $900 each to eat the bananas in what is billed as one of the first human feeding trials of GE products.