Articles

A group of MEPs has asked the Commission to examine the Bayer-Monsanto merger, and some of France’s best-known chefs have written an open letter condemning the invasion of the food chain by the agrochemical industry. EurActiv France reports.

A group of 55 MEPs yesterday (22 September) sent a letter to the European Commission, expressing their concern over the fusion of agricultural and chemical giants Bayer and Monsanto. Written by Green MEP Michèle Rivasi, the letter was co-signed by 54 of her colleagues, primarily from the European Parliament’s left-wing groups (Greens/EFA, S&D, GUE/NGL).

In it, the lawmakers urged the European executive’s DG Competition to address the subject quickly, if only because the new super-corporation’s €23 billion revenue would so far exceed the €5bn threshold for Commission scrutiny. The company’s European revenue is also well above €250 million, and Bayer and Monsanto are both big players on the same pesticides and seeds markets.

Are GMOs 2.0 in your food and cosmetics? Gene-silenced apples that never look old, synthetic stevia created with genetically engineered algae — these are just some of the new generation of GMOs companies are sneaking into food and consumer products.

This new guide helps consumers avoid the new wave of GMOs and find truly natural and sustainable options.

The 12-page guide is available for free below, and printed copies can be ordered in bulk for the cost of shipping.

The Shopper’s Guide to Synthetic Biology explains:

Which GMO 2.0 products are in stores now, or on their way. Examples include synthetic versions of vanilla, stevia and patchouli fragrance.

Concerns about GMOs 2.0, including lack of testing, lack of labeling and negative impact on small farmers.

How to avoid GMOs 2.0: Buy organic as the best option, or choose products with the Non-GMO Verified or Made Safe certifications that do not allow synthetic biology ingredients.

How can I get hold of the Shopper’s Guide?

Consumers can download the Shopper’s Guide for free (344 downloads) . You can also order printed copies to distribute in your business, organization, or community for the cost of shipping. And you can download the mini guide (71 downloads) , to get the conversation started in your community.

Policymakers could still block the agribiz mergers; peasants and farmers will continue the fight for seeds and rights

Wednesday’s confirmation that Monsanto and Bayer have agreed to a $66 billion merger is just the latest of four M&A announcements, but at least three more game-changing mergers are in play (and flying under the radar). The acquisition activity is no longer just about seeds and pesticides but about global control of agricultural inputs and world food security. Anti-competition regulators should block these mergers everywhere, and particularly in the emerging markets of the Global South, as the new mega companies will greatly expand their power and outcompete national enterprises. Four of the world’s top 10 agrochemical purchasing countries are in the global South and account for 28% of the world market.[1] If some of these throw up barriers, shareholders will rebel against the deals regardless of decisions in Washington or Brussels.

“These deals are not just about seeds and pesticides, but also about who will control Big Data in agriculture,” says Pat Mooney of ETC Group, an International Civil Society Organization headquartered in Canada that monitors agribusiness and agricultural technologies. “The company that can dominate seed, soil and weather data and crunch new genomics information will inevitably gain control of global agricultural inputs – seeds, pesticides, fertilizers and farm machinery.”

A $66 billion merger deal between German chemical giant Bayer and US seeds firm Monsanto could result in the world's largest agribusiness. But what does it mean for African farmers, where Monsanto is also active?

Many experts say that Bayer's takeover of Monsanto may lead to a global monopoly in the production of agricultural supplies. Mariam Mayet, executive director of the African Centre for Biodiversity in South Africa, told DW that the merger could also have a negative impact on both farmers and consumers in Africa.

DW: What is your take on the merger between Bayer and Monsanto?

Mariam Mayet: I think that it will result in one of the largest agribusinesses on the planet, because it will put together one company that will control almost 30 percent of the world's seeds and around one quarter of the world's pesticide market. But we must also remember that this merger is part of a bigger consolidation and concentration in the global agriculture input market. As we speak, the deal between ChemChina and Syngenta is being finalized, as well as the merger between the Dow Chemical Company and DuPont.

What are the likely risks arising out of this merger and how will it affect farmers in Africa?

I think the first thing to note is that Monsanto already controls much of the high breed maize seed market in Southern Africa, and in parts of West Africa. So in terms of further expansion into the seed market, I think that we will see a greater push into the GM [genetically modified] seed market, particularly GM cotton in West Africa.

The Director-General of National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA), Dr Rufus Ebegba has disclosed that Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) food would not enter Nigerian market in the next three years adding that there might be GMO suspected food like maize, cotton and soya beans that have been officially released in the international market.

He maintained that the agency carried out a survey and discovered the absence of GMO food in the country stressing that the ones released globally have been certified safe.

While noting that no GM rice has been commercially released anywhere in the world, he recalled that the federal government has banned the importation of rice adding that there are no indication that the ban has been lifted.

EU and US consumers call for regulation and labeling of products derived from new genetic engineering techniques

Today, TACD published a new resolution on consumer concerns about new genetic engineering techniques. Consumers have right to know when new genetic engineering techniques are used, including in their food, but companies are lobbying to exempt such products from regulation. A number of new genetic engineering techniques have been developed which were not in use when current laws on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were drafted.

The new resolution states that risks to human health, animal welfare and the environment must be assessed before products derived from new genetic engineering techniques are placed on the market or released into the environment. Products must also be labelled in accordance with consumers’ rights to know and choose what they are buying, including what they eat.

The resolution makes a set of recommendations to the EU and U.S. authorities for a framework that guarantees the adequate protection of EU and U.S. consumers alike.

347 GMO-free-municipalities, 215 GMO-free-regions and 31,960 GMO-free-farmers´ land have been declared as GMO-free zones in Germany.

Amazing News! City Council in Victoria BC has voted unanimously for a GE-Free Victoria! On August 25, council members all voted to oppose the planting of genetically engineered crops, plants and trees and is now calling on the federal government to label all GE foods and halt any new GE food approvals until "a regime of independent and transparent scientific assessment and GMO management is introduced.” This inspiring outcome is due to the hard work of many local people - you can read all about it here: https://thedeepersideblog.com/2016/08/25/ge-free-victoria-passed-unanimous/

Genetic “Extinction” Technology Rejected by International Group of Scientists, Conservationists and Environmental Advocates

gene-drives-image

via www.synbiowatch.org

OAHU, HAWAI’I — As thousands of government representatives and conservationists convene in Oahu this week for the 2016 World Conservation Congress, international conservation and environmental leaders are raising awareness about the potentially dangerous use of gene drives — a controversial new synthetic biology technology intended to deliberately cause targeted species to become extinct.

Members of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), including NGOs, government representatives, and scientific and academic institutions, overwhelmingly voted to adopt a de facto moratorium on supporting or endorsing research into gene drives for conservation or other purposes until the IUCN has fully assessed their impacts. News of the August 26 digital vote comes as an important open letter to the group is being delivered.

OAHU, HAWAI’I — As thousands of government representatives and conservationists convene in Oahu this week for the 2016 World Conservation Congress, international conservation and environmental leaders are raising awareness about the potentially dangerous use of gene drives — a controversial new synthetic biology technology intended to deliberately cause targeted species to become extinct.

Members of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), including NGOs, government representatives, and scientific and academic institutions, overwhelmingly voted to adopt a de facto moratorium on supporting or endorsing research into gene drives for conservation or other purposes until the IUCN has fully assessed their impacts. News of the August 26 digital vote comes as an important open letter to the group is being delivered.

Scientists and environmental experts and organizations from around the globe have advocated for a halt to proposals for the use of gene drive technologies in conservation. Announced today, a long list of environmental leaders, including Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE, genetics professor and broadcaster Dr. David Suzuki, Dr. Fritjof Capra, entomologist Dr. Angelika Hilbeck, Indian environmental activist Dr. Vandana Shiva and organic pioneer and biologist Nell Newman, have lent their support to the open letter: “A Call for Conservation with a Conscience: No Place for Gene Drives in Conservation.” The letter states, in part: “Gene drives, which have not been tested for unintended consequences, nor fully evaluated for ethical and social impacts, should not be promoted as conservation tools.”