The USDA will allow meat and eggs to be labeled as being raised without genetically engineered feed, marking a departure from the agency’s previous policy.

China's agriculture ministry said it would back new laws on genetically modified (GMO) food labeling "at a suitable time" as it seeks to assuage public concerns over safety, but added that current laws protect consumers.

When the Board of Supervisors approved Measure M for the November ballot, they did so with little enthusiasm.

Known as the anti-GMO bill, the initiative attained sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot as early as April, and the Board had no choice but to put it on the ballot for the voters to decide.

Check that: The Board could have also simply accepted the initiative and passed it as county ordinance, though such an approval of an initiative petition is rare. Besides, the Supervisors expressed skepticism over the broad restrictions of the initiative and were more than willing to give voters the final say.

Officially entitled the “Sonoma County Transgenic Contamination Prevention Ordinance,” and on the ballot as Measure M, the bill would “prohibit the propagation, cultivation, raising, or growing of genetically engineered organisms” in unincorporated Sonoma County, and require the Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner to enforce the ordinance.

Seeds of discontent: Sixteen years ago, Montana State University partnered with Monsanto on what farmers and researchers hoped would usher wheat into the genetic age.

A decade later, with the experiment long abandoned, Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” wheat, which was never federally approved, unexpectedly sprang up at MSU’s Southern Agricultural Research Center in Huntley. The discovery has caused big headaches for MSU. Possessing a genetically modified species that hasn't been approved for planting by the federal government is illegal. And, with no country willing to buy genetically-modified wheat, had the rogue wheat inadvertently entered the food chain, it could have been disastrous for the farm economy.

(.....)

“I repeatedly mentioned that I thought this had been moved by the intervention of some animal, whether it be rodents or birds, or deer or raccoons. We have stuff moving across the landscape here all the time,” Kephart said. “You watch a pheasant, they’ll go down a row and they’ll fill their craw with seed and then they fly off to who knows.

"So, I brought this up to the (APHIS) guy. And I mentioned ‘Why are you not considering this and he said ‘We simply don't have a protocol to evaluate that risk. Therefore, it doesn’t exist.’”

Italy has placed significant restrictions on the use of glyphosate, as it looks to phase out the controversial pesticide.

Monsanto Co has withdrawn an application seeking approval for its next generation of genetically modified cotton seeds in India, a major escalation in a long-running dispute between New Delhi and the world's biggest seed maker.

Press release 25 August 2016

European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER)

The recent Nobel laureates’ open letter to the United Nations and governments around the world, accusing Greenpeace of a “crime against humanity” for opposing genetically modified (GMO) golden rice, elicited a reaction from scientists Angelika Hilbeck and Hans Herren (Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich). They point out that the letter does not recognise the facts about golden rice and makes many scientifically unsubstantiated claims. Among the Nobel laureate signatories, there seems to be hardly anybody with a solid scientific track record in agriculture, food production, development, or the socio-ecological and political causes of poverty and hunger. Others with notable competence – at least in the economic and social domains of development, poverty, and hunger – are not among the signatories. Hilbeck and Herren present the missing facts.

August 23, 2016

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

PAN Europe enthusiastically applauds the decision by Italy’s Ministry of Health to place a number of restrictions on the use of Glyphosate, one of the world’s most ubiquitous pesticides.

The Italian restrictions ban the use of Glyphosate in areas frequented by the public or by "vulnerable groups" including children and the elderly. The list of banned areas includes parks, gardens and courtyards, the edges of roads and railways, urban areas, sports fields and recreational areas, playgrounds and green areas within the school buildings, and areas adjacent to health facilities.

In addition, the pre-harvest use of Glyphosate--a process known as desiccation--is banned. The desiccation of crops by spraying glyphosate is a primary source for residual pesticide contamination at the consumer level. Finally, the non-agricultural use of glyphosate is banned on soils composed 80% or more of sand--a measure designed to protect groundwater from contamination.

Argentina is one of the world's largest exporters of genetically-modified soya. It's big business, but some local residents fear herbicides used by the industry could be making them sick.

Horacio Brignone lives in the village of María Juana in the Argentine flatlands, or pampas. From his window he can see fields of soya.

His 20-year old son has suffered from asthma since he was three years old, he says, but when he recently moved to a city the condition disappeared.

"He hasn't had an attack for two years since he went to study in Córdoba," says Horacio. "But when he came home for two months recently, he began to cough again."

He blames the weedkiller sprayed on the soya fields.

"We are 50m from the fields," Mr Brignone says. "We can't be certain, but respiratory problems and skin complaints are very common round here among those who live very close to the fields."

Mr Brignone's wife, Rosalía Ramonda, has suffered from rashes on her skin for years.

by Angelika Hilbeck and Hans Herren

The recent Nobel laureates’ letter accusing Greenpeace of a “crime against humanity” for opposing genetically modified (GMO) golden rice reveals a deep division not only between civil societies and some science circles but also within the science community – a division in the visions for our common future and which path to take for our joint development. A division we see growing and escalating. A strong indication of this division is that among the Nobel laureate signatories, there seems to be hardly anybody with a solid scientific track record in agriculture, food production, development, or the socio-ecological and political causes of poverty and hunger. Others with notable competence – at least in the economic and social domains of development, poverty, and hunger – are not among the signatories. Signs of escalation also include the emotional, accusing language in the letter and the ample use of scientifically unsubstantiated claims. What is missing in the letter and among the supporters and developers of GMOs is the recognition and scientific analysis of some tough facts.