- JR Latham et al., “The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation,” The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, Vol 2006 Article ID 25376 Pages 1-7, DOI 10.1155/JBB/2006/25376; for a more in-depth discussion, see also Allison Wilson et al., “Genome Scrambling – Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants, Technical Report – October 2004, www.econexus.info.
- Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields – Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh. Report of the Preliminary Assessment April 2006, www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494
- Ashish Gupta, et. al., Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh), Investigation Report, Oct – Dec 2005
- See for example, Monsanto Cited In Crop Losses New York Times, June 16, 1998, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04EED6153DF935A25755C0A96E958260; and Greenpeace http://archive.greenpeace.org/geneng/reports/gmo/intrgmo5.htm
- Antje Lorch, Monsanto Bribes in Indonesia, Monsanto Fined For Bribing Indonesian Officials to Avoid Environmental Studies for Bt Cotton, ifrik 1sep2005, www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Monsanto-Bribes-Indonesia1sep05.htm
- Bt Cotton – No Respite for Andhra Pradesh Farmers More than 400 crores’ worth losses for Bt Cotton farmers in Kharif 2005 Centre for Sustainable Agriculture: Press Release, March 29, 2006 www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6393; see also November 14, 2005 article in www.NewKerala.com regarding Madhya Pradesh.
- Jaideep Hardikar, One suicide every 8 hours, Daily News & Analysis (India), August 26, 2006 www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1049554
- Rick Weiss, U.S. Rice Supply Contaminated, Genetically Altered Variety Is Found in Long-Grain Rice, Washington Post, August 19, 2006
- Jeffrey Smith, US Government and Biotech Firm Deceive Public on GM Corn Mix-up, Spilling the Beans, April 2005
- See for example, Christopher Doering, ProdiGene to spend millions on bio-corn tainting, Reuters News Service, USA: December 9, 2002
- See www.centerforfoodsafety.org
- Office of Inspector General, USDA, Audit Report Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Controls Over Issuance of Genetically Engineered Organism Release Permits, December 2005 www.thecampaign.org/USDA_IG_1205.pdf
- Justin Gillis, Genetically Modified Organisms Not Easily Contained; National Research Council Panel Urges More Work to Protect Against Contamination of Food Supply, Washington Post, Jan 21, 2004
Don't let good veg go bad!
Monsanto and GMOs
May 2008 Vanity Fair
Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination read more
HSUS Investigation Leads to Largest Beef Recall in U.S. History
Group Calls on USDA to Close Loophole in Its Policy on Slaughter of Crippled Cows and on Congress to Enact Tougher Laws
Feb. 18, 2008 from The Humane Society of the U.S.
In the wake of the staggering recall of 143 million pounds of beef—the largest in the nation’s history by far—The Humane Society of the United States is calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Congress to take immediate steps to strengthen federal humane handling procedures and to enact more stringent laws to prevent a recurrence of the gross abuses documented at a southern California slaughter plant. read more
Agrofuels
June 27, 2007 from GRAIN
GRAIN has just published a special issue of Seedling which focuses on biofuels, or as we like to call them, agrofuels – over 30,000 words of in-depth analysis from around the world.
...We believe that the prefix bio, which comes from the Greek word for “life”, is entirely inappropriate for such anti-life devastation. So, following the lead of non-governmental organisations and social movements in Latin America, we shall not be talking about biofuels and green energy. Agrofuels is a much better term, we believe, to express what is really happening: agribusiness producing fuel from plants to sustain a wasteful, destructive and unjust global economy. read more
How Much of Your Food is Being Nuked Before it Hits the Shelf?
From fruit to spices to meat, contamination fears and market possibilities are spurring a food irradiation revival. But how safe is the practice?
July 5, 2007 by Brita Belli
India alone grows 1,000 varieties of mangoes in such delectable variations as the sweet, orange-skinned Alphonso, the Bombay Green and the Bangalora. Here in the U.S., we rarely see more than one lonely variety at the local supermarket, but that’s all about to change. Soon consumers will be able to sample the sweet and tart nectars of many more imported fruits and vegetables from Thailand, India and Mexico piled high in the produce section. But there’s a catch: this fruit will arrive irradiated. read more
Attack of the Mutant Rice
America’s rice farmers didn’t want to grow a genetically engineered crop. Their customers in Europe did not want to buy it. So how did it end up in our food? Fortune’s Marc Gunther reports.
July 2, 2007 by Marc Gunther, Fortune senior writer
(Fortune Magazine)—Back in the spring of 2001, a 64-year-old Texas rice farmer named Jacko Garrett watched a fleet of 18-wheelers haul away truckloads of rice that he had grown with great care. “It just bothers me so bad,” Garrett said. “I’m sitting here trying to find food to feed people, and I’ve got to bury five million pounds of rice.” No one likes to waste food… read more
Red State Welfare
June 28, 2007 by Timothy Egan
Drive across the empty reaches of the Great Plains, from the lost promise of Valentine, Neb., to the shadowless side roads into Sunray, Tex., and what you see is a land that has lost its purpose. Many of the towns set in this infinity of flat have a listless look, with shuttered main streets and schools given over to the grave.
...The Red State welfare program, also known as the farm subsidy system, showers most of its tax dollars on the richest farmers, often people with no dirt under their fingernails, at the expense of everybody else trying to work the land. read more
Berkeley: Urban Farmers Produce Nearly All their Food with a Sustainable Garden in Their Backyard
July 23, 2004 by John Fall, Special to The Chronicle
There is nothing unusual about sitting down to a nice salad for lunch during the summer. What makes the salads prepared by Jim Montgomery and Mateo Rutherford different is that almost every component has been grown, raised or made in their West Berkeley backyard—the purple endive, the lettuce, the tomatoes, the carrots, the green beans and even the feta cheese. read more
How America is Betraying the Hungry Children of Africa
Sunday May 27, 2007 by Alex Renton
It’s early May and Malawi seems to be awash with corn. On the roads, trucks heavy with pale yellow maize heads rumble from the fields; in the villages nearly every woman and child is at work stripping the little kernels from their cobs, singing the harvest songs that give a rhythm to their work. Other women are pounding the maize with a giant pestle and mortar into flour to make the national staple dish – nzima – corn mash. (The men mostly seem to be occupied drinking the new season’s maize beer.) It has been the best harvest in a dozen years or more. So why – and this is what we’ve come here to ask – in this time of historic plenty, is the rich world still sending its unwanted food to Malawi? read more
Why I pick lettuce for the Black Panthers
I worry that Alice Waters’ crusade for local, seasonal food isn’t reaching the people who really need it.
August 1, 2007 by Novella Carpenter
...I think about Waters’ words while I triple-wash my lettuce and herbs, then pack them into plastic bags. She’s right that when you eat a salad fresh from the garden, it tastes vital and truly nourishing. But the kids in my neighborhood eat Cup-a-Soup for breakfast and Cheetos for lunch. Eldridge Cleaver once said, “Black children who go to school hungry each morning have been organized into their poverty.” The chances of my neighbors encountering a salad that has “an aliveness” to it are slim. read more
In Africa, Prosperity From Seeds Falls Short
October 10, 2007 by Celia W. Dugger
HERMAKONO, Guinea — The seeds are a marvel, producing bountiful, aromatic rice crops resistant to drought, pests and disease. But a decade after their introduction, they have spread to only a tiny fraction of the land here in West Africa where they could help millions of farming families escape poverty.
At a time when philanthropists like Bill Gates have become entranced by the possibility of a Green Revolution for Africa, the New Rices for Africa, as scientists call the wonder seeds, offer a clear warning. Even the most promising new crop varieties will not by themselves bring the plentiful harvests that can end poverty. _read more
Table Talk
A conversation with Michael Pollan
October 12, 2007 by Tom Philpott
No writer has galvanized this new national conversation on food more than Michael Pollan, from his muckraking articles on the meat industry for The New York Times Magazine earlier this decade to the publication last year of The Omnivore’s Dilemma. On a recent day when he was reviewing the galleys of his latest book, due out in January, I rang up Pollan at his Berkeley, Calif., home to talk … about food. “_read more”: http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/12/pollan/?source=daily
Greenpeace Exposes Anheuser Busch's Use of Genetically
October 8, 2007 by Greenpeace
WASHINGTON – October 8 – Greenpeace released the results of analyses showing the presence of an experimental genetically engineered (GE) strain of rice at an Anheuser-Busch operated mill in Arkansas that is used to brew Budweiser. _read more
Feds Don't Know How Rice Escaped
October 17, 2007 by Christopher Leonard
ST. LOUIS — Federal regulators could not determine how an experimental strain of biotech rice ended up in the commercial food supply, but an investigation suggests it escaped from a university research laboratory. A yearlong U.S. Department of Agriculture investigation found that the genetically engineered rice, which was not approved for human consumption… read more
Today's Harvest of Shame
October 15, 2007 by Dean Kleckner
AS Congress heads into final negotiations over the farm bill, let’s hope our elected officials are paying attention to the headlines: Brazil has scored yet another huge victory at the World Trade Organization over America’s cotton subsidies; Mexico is likely to file a complaint with the global body over how we subsidize rice farmers; Canada may do the same over corn payments.
This is a troubling pattern, and there’s a good chance America will lose more and more cases unless Congress makes changes in the farm bill… read more
Seeds of Discontent
April 19, 2007 by Joanna Blythman
Britain is losing its green fields, as the grass that once fattened cattle is replaced by oilseed rape. The bright yellow tide has upset lovers of traditional country views. But what about the effects we can’t see? What is this chemical-hungry crop doing to the environment - and our health? read more
Food is New Cause at Universities
October 31, 2007 by John Christoffersen
NEW HAVEN, Conn. -
College students may have a reputation for partying and late-night pizza, but the menu at Yale University reflects a choosier appetite.
It features grass-fed hamburgers, organic tomato sauce, low-fat milk from a cooperative and coffee and teas that meet fair trade standards.
Food is the new cause at Yale and elsewhere, with students pushing their schools to use their substantial purchasing power and influence to buy locally grown or organic produce. They say such purchases are healthier, help struggling smaller farmers and reduce pollution from fuel needed to ship food long distances. read more
The Greenhorns
The trailer for Severine’s film project about young farmers The Greenhorns will be premiering at the Eco Farm Conference
E.coli Loophole Cited in Recalls
Tainted meat can be sold if cooked
November 11, 2007 by Stephen J. Hedges
One federal inspector calls it the “E. coli loophole.” Another says, “Nobody would buy it if they knew.”
The officials are referring to the little-discussed fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has deemed it acceptable for meat companies to cook and sell meat on which E. coli, a bacterium that can sicken and even kill humans, is found during processing.
The “E. coli loophole” affects millions of pounds of beef each year that tests positive for the presence of E. coli O157:H7, a particularly virulent strain of the bacterium. read more
Big food companies accused of risking climate catastrophe
Thursday November 8 2007 by John Vidal
Many of the largest food and fuel companies risk climate change disaster by driving the demand for palm oil and biofuels grown on the world’s greatest peat deposits, a report will say today.
Unilever, Cargill, Nestlé, Kraft, Procter & Gamble, as well as all leading UK supermarkets, are large users of Indonesian palm oil, much of which comes from the province of Riau in Sumatra, where an estimated 14.6bn tonnes of carbon – equivalent to nearly one year’s entire global carbon emissions – is locked up in the world’s deepest peat beds. read more
Trying to Connect the Dinner Plate to Climate Change
August 29, 2007 by CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH
EVER since “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore has been the darling of environmentalists, but that movie hardly endeared him to the animal rights folks. According to them, the most inconvenient truth of all is that raising animals for meat contributes more to global warming than all the sport utility vehicles combined. read more
Organic Diary Farmers Blast USDA, Aurora
September 25, 2007 by Samuel Fromartz
The Federation of Organic Dairy Farmers (FOOD Farmers) issued a blistering attack (pdf) on the USDA and Aurora Organic Dairy (AOD) Tuesday, criticizing the plea bargain they had reached settling 14 alleged violations of the organic regulations by Aurora. The charges were made in a publicly released letter to Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner. read more
Biotech Thrives in Disney’s Secret Garden
By Scott Powers – ORLANDO SENTINEL Updated: 10/21/07 8:59 AM
ORLANDO, Fla. — Deep inside the laboratories of Epcot’s The Land pavilion — beyond the world-record tomato tree or the Mickey Mouse-shaped pumpkins — a tiny part of one of Walt Disney’s dreams is being kept alive in petri dishes.
Visitors’ only brush with science there might involve Epcot’s programs to grow lettuce in water or to shape vegetables like Mickey Mouse. read more
Disney Consumer Unit Plans New Line of Character-Themed Fruits and Vegetables Aimed at Kids
Friday October 12, 3:23 pm ET By Vinnee Tong, AP Business Writer
NEW YORK (AP)—A unit of The Walt Disney Co. plans to begin selling a new line of fruits and vegetables this fall with a bit of sales help from Mickey, Minnie, Donald and Goofy.
Disney Consumer Products said Friday it would use the popularity of its theme park characters to appeal to children and launch a line of products called Disney Garden, to be sold in the produce aisle of stores nationwide including Winn Dixie, Albertsons, and Price Shopper. read more
Brave New Hay
Is Monsanto’s genetic engineering erasing the line between what is natural and what is not?
June 21, 2007 By MATT JENKINS
NAMPA, IDAHO — On an unseasonably cold afternoon in early May, Paul Rasgorshek is making the rounds on his farm, some 3,000 acres perched in the lava-rimmed country on the edge of the Snake River. Wet clouds scud out of the Owyhee Mountains, and from behind the wheel of his pickup, Rasgorshek juggles the two-way radio and the Nextel cell phone that he uses to coordinate the farm’s 17 employees.
Then he eases the truck to a stop to take a close look at the future of farming. read more
Keeping An Eye On Transgenic Crops
June 14, 2007 by David Suzuki
Did you know that genetically modified, or “transgenic” crops are now commonplace on North American farms? According to a recent survey in the United States, the majority of Americans have no idea just how pervasive this technology has become. In fact, North Americans have been eating transgenic foods and using products made from their crops for over a decade. So, what kind of effect, for better or for worse, are these crops having on the environment? read more
Ethanol
Last stage of denial: ethanol will save us!
April 4, 2007
By Murray Dobbin
Citizens in industrialized societies will cling to their extravagant lifestyles and massive over-consumption for a while yet, it seems. Global climate change is still seen by most people – even those who have no doubt of its human origins – as something that can be fixed by legislation, tougher rules and punitive penalties on big polluters – and that allegedly clean and green quick fix, ethanol. read more
Down on the Farm
10 March 2005
By Wendy Edelstein
For the second year running, Lynn Huntsinger, an associate professor of environmental science, policy, and management in the College of Natural Resources, has offered a Freshman Seminar called “Follow Your Food.” The idea for the class originated with Huntsinger’s interest in the relationship between food marketing and the environment, specifically as it relates to her academic focus, rangeland ecology and management. Her goal is “to not only explore where food comes from but also examine how it’s connected to our community and environmental well-being.”
BP deal background info
EBI:
The Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) will be a joint project between UC Berkeley (UCB), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). UCB is the principal motivator, subcontracting out to LBNL and UIUC. LOCATION: The main location will be in a to-be-constructed building in the LBNL area; additional space will be in existing buildings at UIUC, and possibly on the UC Berkeley campus itself. (the proposal is vague on this point, see below) FUNDING:
● BP will provide $500m over 10 years; how this will be split up is not specified.
● The BP funds will not pay for the new building; this will be paid for by the state of California ($40m), UC bond money ($50m), and private donations ($15m). The space at UIUC has been constructed by the state of Illinois at a cost of $24m. DIRECTION: The primary direction of the EBI will be through the Governance Board, consisting of three UCB/LBNL people, two UIUC people, and three BP people. The Governance Board ultimately oversees everything, including allocation of space, direction of research, and funding. Note that this is the ratio in the grant proposal; BP may be currently demanding more representatives. Also, it is stipulated that the top two University people, the director and the deputy director, will “will receive confidential information from BP in order to understand BP’s business strategy and ongoing plans so that he/she can make informed decisions about potential technological developments and business alternatives.”
RESEARCH FOCUS AND ORGANIZATION:
The EBI will be divided into five (somewhat overlapping) “programs”, subdivided into 24 “labs”, plus a separate “applications lab” where BP scientists conduct proprietary BP research. The main programs are: feedstock development, biomass depolymerization, biofuels production, fossil fuel bioproduction and carbon sequestration, and socio-economic systems. Of the 24 labs:
● six are devoted to developing, growing, and processing biofuel crops;
● nine are devoted to (broadly speaking) the (bio-)chemical processes to extract fuel from the crops, including engineering new organisms to do the job;
● one will research ways to use microorganisms to “enhance recovery of petroleum from underground reserves” (the “Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery” lab);
● one will investigate the use of microbes for processing coal into fuel (the “Fossil Fuel Bioprocessing” lab);
● one will research ways to engineer biological processes to store more carbon (“Carbon Sequestration”);
● two will study how to make biofuels economically viable (profitable) (“Biofuels Evaluation & Adoption” and “Biofuels Markets & Networks”);
● two will study the social and environmental implications of biofuels, including long-term impacts of changes in land use (“Environmental Impact and Sustainability Assessment
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: There’s grey areas arising from interactions with the BP employees on campus (see below); but any publications coming out of the EBI are subject to a several-month “pre-publication review” period, in which time BP “will be able to check that publications… do not include any inadvertently included confidential information belonging to BP and/or to request that UCB, LBNL, and/or UIUC file a patent on certain subject matter prior to its public disclosure.” Also (more significantly), “BP will have an exclusive, time-limited, first right to exercise a pre-defined option to obtain an exclusive license” to any inventions “made by UCB, LBNL, or UIUC under a project that is fully funded by BP.” Note: similar agreements are apparently in practice already at UCB, for instance, with an agreement between BP and the College of Chemistry, as well as at the Intel-UCB “lablet”. BP EMPLOYEES in the EBI: The role of BP and the “proprietary reserach” component is very vague, throughout but the general structure is a division into “open” and a “proprietary” sections of the EBI. The “open” sections are described above, and the proprietary section—the “applications lab” will be staffed by (up to 50) BP employees… but there will be “a high degree of ‘flow’ between personnel in the open and proprietary components”. But according to another section, “the proprietary component will be carried out by BP personnel in a central Berkeley campus location… UCB, LBNL, and UIUC research personnel should be excluded entirely from the space in the performance of their university activities.” The arrangement for who gets what patents, etc. resulting from the “flow” is summarized: “Although there is no formula… we believe that they can be managed by scrupulous attention to fairness.” The BP employees will also be involved with all aspects of education at UCB, from K-12 outreach to graduate student mentoring. They’ll be involved with the EBI’s efforts to, e.g. “educate the general public about the benefits of EBI research and technology advances” and how great BP is. CRITIQUES:
● On Page 1, “Vision for the EBI”, second paragraph begins “The development of the atomic bomb at Los Alamos [and some others] are striking examples of how large-scale problems were solved by establishing the proper multidisciplinary scientific culture.” Science certainly “solved” that “problem”… and created the threat of global apocalypse.
● One of the things the Environmental Impact and Sustainability Assessment lab will research is how many carbon credits can be earned with biofuel cropping. Hello, profit.
● In the multiple, extensive lists of resources that UCB can bring to bear on EBI’s research, there is no mention of anything related to examining social and environmental controversies, despite plenty of campus experience in this.
UC biotech biofuel petroleum
UC's biotech-biofuel benefactors: The power of big finance and bad ideas
Miguel A Altieri, Professor, University of California, Berkeley Eric Holt-Gimenez, Executive Director, Food First. Oakland
With royal fanfare, British Petroleum just donated big monies in research funds for UC Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of Illinois to develop new sources of energy -- primarily biotechnology to produce biofuel crops. This comes on the anniversary of Berkeley's hapless research deal with seed giant Novartis ten years ago. However, at half a billion dollars, the BP grant dwarfs Novartis' investment by a factor of ten. The graphics of the announcement were unmistakable: BP's corporate logo is perfectly aligned with the flags of the Nation, the State, and the University. CEO/Chairman Robert A. Malone proclaimed BP was "[J]oining some of the world's best science and engineering talent to meet the demand for low carbon energyŠ we will be working to improve and expand the production of clean, renewable energy through the development of better cropsŠ" This partnership reflects the rapid, unchecked and unprecedented global corporate alignment of the world's largest agribusiness (ADM, Cargill and Bunge), biotech (Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dupont), petroleum (BP, TOTAL, Shell), and automotive industries (Volkswagen, Peugeot, Citroen, Renault, SAAB). With what for them is a relatively small investment, these industries will appropriate academic expertise built over decades of public support, translating into billions in revenues for these global partners.
Could this be a "win-win" agenda for the University, the public, the environment and industry? Hardly. In addition to overwhelming the University's research agenda, what scientists behind this blatantly private business venture fail to mention, is that the apparent free lunch of crop-based fuel can't satisfy our energy appetite, and it will not be free, nor environmentally sound.
Dedicating all present U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of our gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand. Total US cropland reaches 625,000 sq.mi. To replace US oil consumption with biofuels we would need 1.4 million sq.mi. of corn for ethanol and 8.8 million sq. mi. of soybean for biodiesel. Biofuels are expected to turn Iowa and South Dakota into corn-importers by 2008.
The biofuel energy balance -- the amount of fossil energy put in to producing crop biomass compared to that coming out -- is anything but promising. Researchers Patzek and Pimentel see serious negative energy balances with biofuels. Other researchers see only 1.2 to 1.8 fold returns, for ethanol, at best, with the jury still lukewarm on cellulosic biofuels. Industrial methods of corn and soybean production depend on large scale monocultures. Industrial corn requires high levels of chemical nitrogen fertilizer (largely responsible for the dead zone in Gulf of Mexico) and the herbicide atrazine, an endocrine disruptor. Soybeans require massive amounts of non selective, Roundup herbicide that upsets soil ecology and produces "superweeds." Both monocultures produce massive topsoil erosion and surface and groundwater pollution from pesticides and fertilizer runoff. Each gallon of ethanol sucks up 3-4 gallons of water in the production of biomass. The expansion of irrigated "fuel on the cob" into drier areas in the Midwest will draw down the already suffering Ogallala aquifer.
One of the more surreptitious industrial motives of the biofuels agenda -- and the reason Monsanto and company are key players -- is the opportunity to irreversibly convert agriculture to genetically engineered crops (GMOs). Presently, 52% of corn, 89% of soy, and 50% of canola in the US are GMO. The expansion of biofuels with "designer corn" genetically tailored for special ethanol processing plants will remove all practical barriers to the permanent contamination of all non-GMO crops.
Obviously the US can't satisfy its energy appetite with biofuels. Instead, fuel crops will be grown in the developing world on large scale plantations of sugarcane, oil palm and soybean, which are already replacing primary and secondary tropical forests and grasslands in Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Malaysia. Soybeans have already caused the destruction of over 91 million acres of forests and grasslands in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Bolivia. To satisfy world market demands, Brasil alone will need to clear 148 million additional acres of forest. Reduction of greenhouse gases is lost when carbon-capturing forests are felled to make way for biofuel crops.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of small-scale peasant farmers are being displaced by soybean expansion. Many more stand to lose their land under the biofuels stampede. Already, the expanding cropland planted to yellow corn for ethanol has reduced the supply of white corn for tortillas in Mexico, sending prices up 400%. This led peasant leaders at the recent World Social Forum in Nairobi to demand, "No full tanks when there are still empty bellies!"
By promoting large scale mechanized monocultures which require agrochemical inputs and machinery, and as carbon-capturing forests are felled to make way for biofuel crops, CO2 emissions will increase not decrease. The only way to stop global warming is to promote small scale organic agriculture and decrease the use of all fuels, which requires major reductions in consumption patterns and development of massive public transportation systems, areas that the University of California should be actively researching and that BP and the other biofuel partners will never invest one penny toward.
The potential consequences for the environment and society of BP's funding are deeply disturbing. In the wake of the report of the external review of the UCB-Novartis agreement, that recommended that the University not enter into such agreements in the future, how could such a major deal be announced without wide consultation of the UC Faculty? The University has been recruited into a corporate partnership that may irreversibly transform the planet's food and fuel systems and concentrate tremendous power in the hands of a few corporate partners.
It is up to the citizens of California to hold the University accountable to research that supports truly sustainable alternatives to the energy crisis. A serious public debate on this new program is long overdue.
Miguel A Altieri, Ph.D. Professor of Agroecology Division of Insect Biology University of California, Berkeley 137 Mulford # 3114 Berkeley, California 94720 T. 510 6429802 F. 510 6435438 email:agroeco3@nature.berkeley.edu http://www.agroeco.org Miguel A Altieri, Ph.D. Professor of Agroecology Division of Insect Biology University of California, Berkeley 137 Mulford # 3114 Berkeley, California 94720 T. 510 6429802 F. 510 6435438 email:agroeco3@nature.berkeley.edu http://www.agroeco.org
Celebrating Thanksgiving, Berkeley-style
Many on campus are learning about where their food comes from-and getting up close and personal with it 11/16/2006 read more
Whistleblower at Monsanto
Spilling the Beans
By Jeffrey M. Smith
Institute for Responsible Technology
August 2006
Monsanto whistleblower says genetically engineered crops may cause disease.
Monsanto was quite happy to recruit young Kirk Azevedo to sell their genetically engineered cotton. Kirk had grown up on a California farm and had worked in several jobs monitoring and testing pesticides and herbicides. Kirk was bright, ambitious, handsome and idealistic-the perfect candidate to project the company’s “Save the world through genetic engineering” image. It was that image, in fact, that convinced Kirk to take the job in 1996. “When I was contacted by the headhunter from Monsanto, I began to study the company, namely the work of their CEO, Robert Shapiro.” Kirk was thoroughly impressed with Shapiro’s promise of a golden future through genetically modified (GM) crops. “He described how we would reduce the in-process waste from manufacturing, turn our fields into factories and produce anything from lifesaving drugs to insect-resistant plants. It was fascinating to me.” Kirk thought, “Here we go. I can do something to help the world and make it a better place.” He left his job and accepted a position at Monsanto, rising quickly to become the facilitator for GM cotton sales in California and Arizona. He would often repeat Shapiro’s vision to customers, researchers, even fellow employees. After about three months, he visited Monsanto’s St. Louis headquarters for the first time for new employee training. There too, he took the opportunity to let his colleagues know how enthusiastic he was about Monsanto’s technology that was going to reduce waste, decrease poverty and help the world. Soon after the meeting, however, his world was shaken. “A vice president pulled me aside,” recalled Kirk. “He told me something like, ‘Wait a second. What Robert Shapiro says is one thing. But what we do is something else. We are here to make money. He is the front man who tells a story. We don’t even understand what he is saying.’” Kirk felt let down. “I went in there with the idea of helping and healing and came out with ‘Oh, I guess it is just another profit-oriented company.’” He returned to California, still holding out hopes that the new technology could make a difference. Possible Toxins in GM Plants Kirk was developing the market in the West for two types of GM cotton. Bt cotton was engineered with a gene from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis. Organic farmers use the natural form of the bacterium as an insecticide, spraying it occasionally during times of high pest infestation. Monsanto engineers, however, isolated and then altered the gene that produces the Bt-toxin, and inserted it into the DNA of the cotton plant. Now every cell of their Bt cotton produces a toxic protein. The other variety was Roundup Ready® cotton. It contains another bacterial gene that enables the plant to survive an otherwise toxic dose of Monsanto’s Roundup® herbicide. Since the patent on Roundup’s main active ingredient, glyphosate, was due to expire in 2000, the company was planning to sell Roundup Ready seeds that were bundled with their Roundup herbicide, effectively extending their brand’s dominance in the herbicide market.
In the summer of 1997, Kirk spoke with a Monsanto scientist who was doing some tests on Roundup Ready cotton. Using a “Western blot” analysis, the scientist was able to identify different proteins by their molecular weight. He told Kirk that the GM cotton not only contained the intended protein produced by the Roundup Ready gene, but also extra proteins that were not normally produced in the plant. These unknown proteins had been created during the gene insertion process. Gene insertion was done using a gene gun (particle bombardment). Kirk, who has an undergraduate degree in biochemistry, understood this to be “a kind of barbaric and messy method of genetic engineering, where you use a gun-like apparatus to bombard the plant tissue with genes that are wrapped around tiny gold particles.” He knew that particle bombardment can cause unpredictable changes and mutations in the DNA, which might result in new types of proteins. The scientist dismissed these newly created proteins in the cotton plant as unimportant background noise, but Kirk wasn’t convinced. Proteins can have allergenic or toxic properties, but no one at Monsanto had done a safety assessment on them. “I was afraid at that time that some of these proteins may be toxic.” He was particularly concerned that the rogue proteins “might possibly lead to mad cow or some other prion-type diseases.” Kirk had just been studying mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) and its human counterpart, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). These fatal diseases had been tracked to a class of proteins called prions. Short for “proteinaceous infectious particles,” prions are improperly folded proteins, which cause other healthy proteins to also become misfolded. Over time, they cause holes in the brain, severe dysfunction and death. Prions survive cooking and are believed to be transmittable to humans who eat meat from infected “mad” cows. The disease may incubate undetected for about 2 to 8 years in cows and up to 30 years in humans. When Kirk tried to share his concerns with the scientist, he realized, “He had no idea what I was talking about; he had not even heard of prions. And this was at a time when Europe had a great concern about mad cow disease and it was just before the noble prize was won by Stanley Prusiner for his discovery of prion proteins.” Kirk said “These Monsanto scientists are very knowledge about traditional products, like chemicals, herbicides and pesticides, but they don’t understand the possible harmful outcomes of genetic engineering, such as pathophysiology or prion proteins. So I am explaining to him about the potential untoward effects of these foreign proteins, but he just did not understand.” Endangering the Food Supply At this time, Roundup Ready cotton varieties were just being introduced into other regions but were still being field-tested in California. California varieties had not yet been commercialized. But Kirk came to find out that Monsanto was feeding the cotton plants used in its test plots to cattle. “I had great issue with this,” he said. “I had worked for Abbot Laboratories doing research, doing test plots using Bt sprays from bacteria. We would never take a test plot and put into the food supply, even with somewhat benign chemistries. We would always destroy the test plot material and not let anything into the food supply. Now we entered into a new era of genetic engineering. The standard was not the same as with pesticides. It was much lower, even though it probably should have been much higher.” Kirk complained to the Ph.D. in charge of the test plot about feeding the experimental plants to cows. He explained that unknown proteins, including prions, might even effect humans who consume the cow’s milk and meat. The scientist replied, “Well that’s what we’re doing everywhere else and that’s what we’re doing here.” He refused to destroy the plants. Kirk got a bit frantic. He started talking to others in the company. “I approached pretty much everyone on my team in Monsanto.” He was unable to get anyone interested. In fact, he said, “Once they understood my perspective, I was somewhat ostracized. It seemed as if once I started questioning things, people wanted to keep their distance from me. I lost the cooperation with other team members. Anything that interfered with advancing the commercialization of this technology was going to be pushed aside.”
He then approached California Agriculture Commissioners. “These local Ag commissioners are traditionally responsible for test plots and to make sure test plot designs protect people and the environment.” But Kirk got nowhere. “Once again, even at the Ag commissioner level, they were dealing with a new technology that was beyond their comprehension. They did not really grasp what untoward effects might be created by the genetic engineering process itself.” Kirk continued to try to blow the whistle on what he thought could be devastating to the health of consumers. “I spoke to many Ag commissioners. I spoke to people at the University of California. I found no one who would even get it, or even get the connection that proteins might be pathogenic, or that there might be untoward effects associated with these foreign proteins that we knew we were producing. They didn’t even want to talk about it really. You’d kind of see a blank stare when speaking to them on this level. That led me to say I am not going to be part of this company anymore. I’m not going to be part of this disaster, from a moral perspective.” Kirk gave his two-week notice. In early January 1998, he finished his last day of work in the morning and in the afternoon started his first day at chiropractic college. He was still determined to make a positive difference for the world, but with a radically changed approach. While in school, he continued to research prion disease and its possible connection with GM crops. What he read then and what is known now about prions has not alleviated his concerns. He says, “The protein that manifests as mad cow disease takes about five years. With humans, however, that time line is anywhere from 10-30 years. We were talking about 1997 and today is 2006. We still don’t know if there is anything going to happen to us from our being used as test subjects.” Update It turns out that the damage done to DNA due to the process of creating a genetically modified organism is far more extensive than previously thought.[1] GM crops routinely create unintended proteins, alter existing protein levels or even change the components and shape of the protein that is created by the inserted gene. Kirk’s concerns about a GM crop producing a harmful misfolded protein remain well-founded, and have been echoed by scientists as one of the many possible dangers that are not being evaluated by the biotech industry’s superficial safety assessments. GM cotton has provided ample reports of unpredicted side-effects. In April 2006, more than 70 Indian shepherds reported that 25% of their herds died within 5-7 days of continuous grazing on Bt cotton plants.[2] Hundreds of Indian agricultural laborers reported allergic reactions from Bt cotton. Some cotton harvesters have been hospitalized and many laborers in cotton gin factories take antihistamines each day before work.[3] The cotton’s agronomic performance is also erratic. When Monsanto’s GM cotton varieties were first introduced in the US, tens of thousands of acres suffered deformed roots and other unexpected problems. Monsanto paid out millions in settlements.[4] When Bt cotton was tested in Indonesia, widespread pest infestation and drought damage forced withdrawal of the crop, despite the fact that Monsanto had been bribing at least 140 individuals for years, trying to gain approval.[5] In India, inconsistent performance has resulted in more than $80 million dollars in losses in each of two states.[6] Thousands of indebted Bt cotton farmers have committed suicide. In Vidarbha, in north east Maharashtra, from June through August 2006, farmers committed suicide at a rate of about one every eight hours.[7] (The list of adverse reactions reported from other GM crops, in lab animals, livestock and humans, is considerably longer.)
Kirk’s concern about GM crop test plots also continues to remain valid. The industry has been consistently inept at controlling the spread of unapproved varieties. On August 18, 2006, for example, the USDA announced that unapproved GM long grain rice, which was last field tested by Bayer CropScience in 2001, had contaminated the US rice crop8 (probably for the past 5 years). Japan responded by suspending long grain rice imports and the EU will now only accept shipments that are tested and certified GM-free. Similarly, in March 2005, the US government admitted that an unapproved corn variety had escaped from Syngenta’s field trials four years earlier and had contaminated US corn.[9] By year’s end, Japan had rejected at least 14 shipments containing the illegal corn. Other field trialed crops have been mixed with commercial varieties, consumed by farmers, stolen, even given away by government agencies and universities who had accidentally mixed seed varieties. Some contamination from field trials may last for centuries. That may be the fate of a variety of unapproved Roundup Ready grass which, according to reports made public in August 2006, had escaped into the wild from an Oregon test plot years earlier. Pollen had crossed with other varieties and wind had dispersed seeds. Scientists believe that the variety will cross pollinate with other grass varieties and may contaminate the commercial grass seed supply-70 percent of which is grown in Oregon. Even GM crops with known poisons are being grown outdoors without adequate safeguards for health and the environment. A corn engineered to produce pharmaceutical medicines, for example, contaminated corn and soybean fields in Iowa and Nebraska in 2002.[10] On August 10, 2006, a federal judge ruled that the drug-producing GM crops grown in Hawaii violated both the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.[11] A December 29, 2005 report by the USDA office of Inspector General, blasted the agriculture department for its abysmal oversight of GM field trials, particularly for the high risk drug producing crops.[12] And a January 2004 report by the National Research Council also called upon the government to strengthen its oversight, but acknowledged that there is no way to guarantee that field trialed crops will not pollute the environment.[13] With the US government failing to prevent GM contamination, and with state governments and agriculture commissioners unwilling to challenge the dictates of the biotech industry, some California counties decided to enact regulations of their own. California’s diverse agriculture is particularly vulnerable and thousands of field trials on not-yet-approved GM crops have already taken place there. If contamination were discovered, it could easily devastate an industry. Four counties have enacted moratoria or bans on the planting of GM crops, including both approved and unapproved varieties. This follows the actions of more than 4500 jurisdictions in Europe and dozens of nations, states and regions on all continents, which have sought to restrict planting of GM crops to protect their health, environment and agriculture. Ironically, California’s assembly, which has done nothing to protect the state from possible losses due to GM crop contamination, passed a bill on August 24, 2006 that prohibits other counties and cities from creating GM free zones. The senate is expected to vote on the issue by the end of their session on August 31st (see www.calgefree.org/preemption.shtml). It is yet another example of how the biotech industry has been able to push their agenda onto US consumers, without regard to health and environmental safeguards. No doubt that their lobbyists, anxious to have this bill pass, told legislators that GM crops are needed to stop poverty and feed a hungry world.
[Update 9/1/06: The California Senate session ended without senators voting on the bill to prevent local jurisdictions from creating GM-Free zones. For the time being at least, California counties and cities may still enact GM-Free zones. Click here to read the full press release.]
Jeffrey Smith’s forthcoming book, Genetic Roulette, documents more than 60 health risks of GM foods in easy-to-read two-page spreads, and demonstrates how current safety assessments are not competent to protect consumers from the dangers. His previous book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s best-selling book on the subject. He is available for media at info@seedsofdeception.com. Dr. Kirk Azevedo has a chiropractic office in Cambria, California. Press may reach him at (805) 927-1055 or at drkirk@charter.net”.
French activist farmer Bove held in custody
French activist farmer Bove held in custody
5th November 2006| Reuters
Bordeaux – Police detained radical farmer Jose Bove, a possible candidate for France’s 2007 presidential election, on Saturday after a demonstration against genetically modified food (GMO) on private property.Bove and some 50 other farmers went to the police to file a complaint of attempted murder against a corn producer. Police were cited as saying that the owner, who was also held, had fired a gun in the air to disperse the demonstrators. Between 100 and 150 protesters went to the farm in the southern Gironde region and poured water over what they said was genetically modified corn stocked in a silo in the town of Lugos. When the owner arrived, he fired his gun and ran his car into four vehicles before the demonstrators overpowered him. Bove, a prominent protester against globalisation and fast food, said in June he would run for president next year, hoping to rally voters on the far left.