Natural News

Genetically engineered wheat contains an enzyme suppressor that, when consumed by humans, could cause permanent liver failure (and death). That’s the warning issued today by molecular biologist Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury in Australia.

Heinemann has published an eye-opening report that details this warning and calls for rigorous scientific testing on animals before this crop is ever consumed by humans. The enzyme suppressor in the wheat, he says, might also attack a human enzyme that produces glycogen. Consumers who eat genetically modified wheat would end up contaminating their bodies with this enzyme-destroying wheat, causing their own livers to be unable to produce glycogen, a hormone molecule that helps the body regulate blood sugar metabolism. This, in turn, would lead to liver failure.

“What we found is that the molecules created in this wheat, intended to silence wheat genes, can match human genes, and through ingestion, these molecules can enter human beings and potentially silence our genes,” said Heinemann in a press conference on the threat of GM wheat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI7n_caiTvE).

“We found over 770 pages of potential matches between these two genes in wheat and the human genome,” he continued. “We found over a dozen matches that are extensive and identical, and sufficient to cause silencing in experimental systems. The findings are absolutely assured. There’s no doubt that these matches exist. …from this information, we know that it’s plausible there will be an adverse effect and therefore that’s why we’re calling for a particular battery of experiments to be done before humans eat this wheat.”

Professor Judy Carman, biochemist and director of the IHER, Flinders University, Adelaide, added: “If this silences the same sort of gene in us — as it silences in the wheat — then, well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five. And adults with this problem, just kind of get more and more sick, and more and more tired, until they get very very ill indeed.”

She continues, “Before this comes near any human feeding studies, you need to undertake thorough animal safety assessments, where you actually look to see if the animals get sick. So you need to see if this genetic modification survives digestion and gets into the bodies of the animals. You need to see what effect it has on them. You need to do proper long-term toxicology studies… you need to check for cancer, you need to see if there are any reproductive problems, and you need to check for allergies…”

GMO pushers want you and your children to be the guinea pigs

As you consider this information, keep in mind that GMO pushers want you and your children to eat GMOs that have never been safety tested on anyone! You are simply supposed to believe in the safety of GMOs, like a cult followers, without any scientific evidence proving it.

In today’s corporate-run quack science agricultural system, YOU are the human guinea pigs. There is no science behind the safety of GMOs, and in fact the real science shows that GMOs cause infertility, sickness and disease in the animal tests that have been done. GMOs are a threat to humanity, and those who promote them are junk science villains who have sold their souls to the criminal biotechnology industry.

The GMO industry is so evil that it doesn’t even want you to know you’re eating GMOs! That’s why industry giants are funneling tens of millions of dollars into a scheme to try to defeat Proposition 37 in California (www.CArighttoknow.org) which would legally mandate the labeling of GMOs on food products.

Even popular brands that “sound” natural are actually fighting against GMO labeling: Kashi, Larabar, Cascadian Farm, R.W. Knudsen, Silk and other brands have all betrayed consumers and are now the subject of a global Natural News boycott.

Click here to see the infographic.

Australian regulators sell out to Monsanto

In commenting on all this, Dr Brian John of GM-Free Cymru said:

“What we see here is yet another example of a GM wheat variety released into the environment without any proper assessment of health and safety issues. CSIRO and the Australian and New Zealand regulators have long had a strategy of promoting GM crops which nobody actually wants, with a degree of enthusiasm that verges on criminal negligence. We see a very similar scenario in the UK, where GM wheat is being grown at Rothamsted in spite of strong public opposition and in spite of zero market demand, just to satisfy the whims of politicians and multinational corporations. It is high time for this absurd and dangerous experiment with GM technology to be stopped in its tracks, since new evidence of harm to health and the environment now seems to be appearing on a weekly basis.”(http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14181-gm-wheat-health-dange…)

See the background on CSIRO here:
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/CSIRO

It shows that CSIRO has financial ties to Monsanto and other biotech companies.

Read the expert scientific opinion reports

(Thanks due to GMwatch.org for this list.)

Professor Jack Heinemann’s Expert Scientific Opinion

Professor Judy Carman’s Expert Scientific Opinion

Professor Michael Antoniou’s Expert Scientific Appraisal of Heinemann and Carman’s Work

Heinemann’s Expert Scientific Opinion: Appendix 1

Heinemann’s Expert Scientific Opinion: Appendix 2

Safe Food Foundation media release on the opinions

ABBREVIATIONS
CSIRO = Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
FSANZ = Food Standards Australia New Zealand
OGTR = Office of the Gene Technology Regulator

Background on Jack Heinemann

Source: http://safefoodfoundation.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/He…

I am a molecular biologist. I have been an academic at the University of Canterbury since 1994. Prior to that, I was employed by the US National Institutes of Health. My doctorate was conferred by the University of Oregon at Eugene (1989) and my Bachelor of Science (with honours) degree from the University of Wisconsin, Madison (1985). I am involved in risk assessment research and participate in risk assessment through evaluation of assessments provided to regulatory bodies and through the development of international guidance documents for risk assessment. I have over 100 scholarly works published on the topic of molecular biology, genetics, risk assessment and other scientific matters within my expertise. I publish in leading international journals and my work has been recognised by prestigious professional organisations for its excellence.

Sources for this story include:
GM Watch

Watch the presentation of Jack Heinemann

A good example is the Greenpeace assault on Shell facilities in Britain in July, which saw activists blockade and shut down 74 petrol stations in Edinburgh and London to protest against the company’s plan to drill for oil in the Arctic. There were similar actions in Denmark and Germany, and Greenpeace also blocked access to the Shell Headquarters in The Hague.

British and European police made arrests and protesters will duly appear in court.  But what can a company do in the face of such opposition?  Shell UK issued a statement recognising the right of individuals to express their point of view and said they had met with many individuals and organizations who oppose drilling off Alaska. “We respect their views and value the dialogue. We have extended this same offer for productive dialogue with Greenpeace.” Which is polite and conciliatory, though of course Greenpeace proudly refuses to take part in any such dialogue.

By contrast a threatened illegal action a few weeks earlier triggered a robust and successful response, when British protesters tried to destroy a GM wheat crop at the government-funded  Rothamsted Research Institute in Hertfordshire. Massed police used a trespass order and mounted officers to successfully block hundreds of activists determined to storm the property.

More importantly the scientists had launched an effective communication offensive – including its website, Twitter feed and a YouTube video – to explain the importance of the research and directly urge the protesters against violence and criminal damage. They also offered to fund a public debate in a neutral venue, which the protest group declined.  The Guardian science Editor commented: “The Rothamsted scientists have won public support.  In stark contrast to the 1990s, the media overwhelmingly condemned the campaigners’ threat of vandalism.”

So what is the best strategy when threatened with an illegal protest? State your case openly and boldly; leave it to the police; and don’t listen to the lawyers who advise legal action such as an injunction. And ignore “security experts” who suggest using spies or private detectives against individual activists. The “fighting fire with fire” approach has famously backfired on far too many big corporations who should have known better.

Any organization planning to use legal muscle against activists – even if they are breaking the law – would be well advised to remember the biblical battle between David and Goliath.  No-one remembers what they were fighting about, but everyone knows who won and who was the villain of the piece.

Footnote: Managing Outcomes reported in March how Lucy Lawless (aka Xena Warrior Princess) joined other Greenpeace protesters to occupy an oil-drilling ship in New Zealand, destined to take part in Shell’s Arctic exploration. After numerous legal delays they have now pleaded guilty to a reduced charge, apparently negotiated to protect the TV star’s ability to work in the USA. They will be sentenced in September.

I’ve just been sent GMO Myths and Truths, a review of research on claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified (GM) foods.  The authors are Michael Antoniou, Claire Robinson, and John Fagan, scholars with critical positions on GM foods.

I’ve been writing about GM foods since the mid-1990s, and am impressed by the immutability of positions on the topic.   As I discuss in my book Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety, the pro-GM and anti-GM advocates view the topic in quite different ways that I call for lack of better terms “science-based” versus “value-based.”

In GMO Myths and Truths, the authors attempt to cross this divide by taking a science-based, heavily referenced approach to dealing with claims for the benefits of GM foods.

On the basis of this research, they argue that a large body of scientific and other authoritative evidence demonstrates that most claims for benefits of GM foods are not true. On the contrary, they say, the evidence presented in their report indicates that GM crops:

• Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops
• Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
• Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
• Do not increase yield potential
• Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
• Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
• Have mixed economic effects
• Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
• Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
• Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
• Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.

Whether or not you agree with these conclusions, the authors have put a great deal of time and effort into reviewing the evidence for the claims.  This is the best-researched and most comprehensive review I’ve seen of the criticisms of GM foods.

Can the pro-GM advocates produce something equally well researched, comprehensive, and compelling?  I doubt it but I’d like to see them try.

In the meantime, this report provides plenty of justification for the need to label GM foods.  Consumers have the right to choose.  To do that, we need to know.

Please let’s just label it.

This post originally appeared on Food Politics, an Atlantic partner site.

Please circulate widely and repost, but you must give the URL of the original and preserve all the links back to articles on our website. If you find this report useful, please support ISIS by subscribing to our magazine Science in Society, and encourage your friends to do so. Or have a look at the ISIS bookstore for other publications

Rothamsted Institute in Hertfordshire, UK, has begun an open-air GM wheat trial that is re-energising the country’s debate on genetically modified (GM) crops. The crop has been engineered to produce an aphid ‘alarm’ pheromone that aims to repel the aphid pests from the crop and/or attract aphid predators.

Despite the media hype, there has been no critical analysis of the scientific or political rationale behind the project. The huge PR campaign headed by the lobby group Sense About Science has successfully confused the public and obscured the facts. Meanwhile, Rothamsted is pressing for debates with GM sceptics in an attempt to convince the public that the GM technology is based on environmental principles, and is needed to feed a starving world. But evidence of the technology’s effectiveness, safety and potential non-private beneficiaries is conspicuously lacking. The inclusion of a herbicide tolerance (see below) trait in the crop – not disclosed to the public – also discredits the institute’s claims of being “environmentalists” with aims to promote sustainable agricultural practices and reduce chemical use.

What is the GM wheat?

According to Rothamsted, these new GM crops are “designed to ‘emulate’ a plant’s natural defence system” and have been shrewdly dubbed “second generation” GM crops, distinguishing them from the herbicide-tolerant crops that currently dominate the market [1]. Herbicide-tolerant crops promote the use of chemical herbicides, as GM plants made tolerant to them will not die after application. The scientists claim that their new strategy will reduce pesticide use, as aphids will be deterred from the crop, and the pheromone may also attract aphid predators to the plant.

The GM spring wheat allegedly contains a modified version of an ‘alarm’ pheromone normally produced by aphids to alert them of danger. Currently, there is no published data on this GM crop, so there is little scientific information on the genetic modification or the GM plants themselves to justify the project. What little information there is has come from press releases and from the institute’s application for consent to release the GM crop available on the internet [2].

The pheromone (E)-β-farnesene (EBF) is produced by some plants such as peppermint as a natural defence against aphids. The experiment will test two different varieties of pheromone-producing wheat. One expresses the alarm pheromone alone, and the second expresses the pheromone and an additional enzyme that increases the levels of pheromone substrate, and therefore levels of the pheromone itself.

The DNA sequences put into the wheat include chimeric versions of the peppermint gene encoding EBF synthase, expressed under the maize ubiquitin promoter 1. EBF synthase converts substrates including farnesyl diphosphate (FPP) into EBF. The Ubiquitin promoter is expected to express the enzyme everywhere in the plant. The second GM wheat produces in addition FPP synthase, the enzyme that makes FPP. The theory is that more substrate will be available to increase pheromone production. The first line carries 4 copies of the EBF synthase transgene, while the second line contains one copy of both the EPF synthase and FPP synthase transgenes. As stated in Rothamsted’s application [2], “the nucleotide sequences of these genes are synthetic and chimeric and not found naturally”. They have not analysed the genome of the GM wheat to determine the structure or location of the inserted DNA. The transgenes were judged to be stably inherited according to the PCR experiments. But without thorough molecular genetic characterization, transgene instability cannot be ruled out, and this is a notorious limitation of genetic modification of crop plants (see [3] Transgenic Lines Proven Unstable, SiS 20).

Apart from the pheromone-related genes, there are extra DNA elements including neomycin and kanamycin antibiotic resistance, and both DNA constructs also contain a gene conferring resistance to glufosinate ammonium herbicides. These can be used as selectable markers for transgenic plants [4] but are surplus to requirement in protecting plants against aphid attack; and should have been removed from the transgenic plants to prevent the genes from spreading to other crops and indeed to bacterial pathogens in the environment.

Kanamycin is still in clinical use and also cross reacts with other new antibiotics (see [5] Kanamycin Still Used and Cross-Reacts with New Antibiotics, ISIS report).

The only information published by Rothamsted on any aphid-repelling GM crops refers to kanamycin resistance for selection, so the herbicide resistance trait is not even used. But there is a clear intention to benefit from this trait once the crop is commercialised.  As stated in their application, “these plants possess the ability to tolerate glufosinate-based herbicides which would increase their survivability in environments where these herbicides were the only ones used”.

It also transpires that Bayer, the major producer of glufosinate and glufosinate-tolerant crops including canola, soybean, cotton and corn, is a partner of Rothamsted. The fact that glufosinate herbicides have been banned in the EU since 2009 due to their high toxicity in mammals (including reproductive problems) raises the question – is this product really aimed for the UK market? The fact that the wheat is also the spring and not winter variety adds further weight to this question, as the overwhelming majority grown in the UK is of the winter variety.

With regards to general plant health, no physiological or morphological analyses of the plants were performed on the grounds that [2] “no other changes to the plant morphology or development are apparent”.

Previous experiments with alarm pheromone

There have been no publications on the new GM wheat. The institute, did however, publish results of a flowering plant, A. thaliana also expressing the pheromone [4].  The study looked at acute effects on aphid behaviour but did not test any long-term impacts on aphids or beneficial insects. Aphids were exposed to the pheromone either in droplet form or through exposure to air space above the plants for 1 minute or 15 minutes. They recorded a near 80 % behavioural response to EBF-containing droplets after one minute that was reduced to around 40 % after 15 minutes. Exposure to air space above the transgenic plants elicited a near 15 % response after 1 minute that was also reduced to below 10 % after 15 minutes. The length of time the predator species D. rapae spent on the GM plants was also increased from 10 to 15 minutes.

The trend for a reduction of aphid response from 1 to 15 minutes exposes a limitation in the technology that has been highlighted in other studies – the potential habituation of aphids to the pheromone. Ordinarily, aphids release these signals in acute pulses, which differ significantly to the continual expression in GM crops.

A follow up study performed in Germany using the same GM A. thaliana plants made by Rothamsed, found that the aphids no longer responded at all in the long term [6]. An experiment allowing aphids to choose between GM and control non-GM plants over a period of 2 weeks found no significant difference. They also analysed the numbers of winged morph offspring that were produced. EBF is thought to increase the numbers of winged aphids that can then escape potential danger. There were no differences in the total numbers of offspring or the percentage of winged offspring produced.

Another study, again using Rothamsted’s GM A. thaliana found habituation to the pheromone with no significant difference in response to GM versus non-GM plants after only 3 generations [7]. There was a fitness cost to the habituation, with more being predated after 24 hours of co-habitation with beetles. It would have been interesting to see the effects on predators over a longer period of time. The rapid habituation to the pheromone suggests that the GM wheat will not have any long-lasting effects, and simple laboratory experiments prior to field release would have provided answers to these basic questions.

Risks of genetic contamination

The researchers are claiming risks of genetic contamination to be negligible, although possible. However, genetic contamination of wheat has been documented in the past, and widespread contamination by other GM crops including corn and canola has been well documented.

Wheat is predominantly self-pollinating, but can also cross-pollinate, the level depending on many factors including weather conditions, wild-life, and size and densities of both GM fields and donor plant fields. Insect pollination can also occur in hot conditions during seed set. As stated in the application [2] “Dispersal of seed prior to harvest by wind is unlikely, but possible by wildlife”. They also admit that: “Under certain growing conditions individual genotypes may have out-crossing rates of up to 4-5%”. Further, the trial report does not deal with seed transfer by birds and small four-footed animals both in faeces and by sticking to feet and feathers or coats. It is very difficult to prevent small animals from spreading wheat grains. The sucking nature of aphid feeding can also enable the transfer of transgenic DNA to other plants.

The grain obtained will be disposed of in a deep landfill using an approved contractor, however there is no discussion of the predictable spread of seed along roadways from truck wheel, wells etc. This has already led to the contamination of seed stocks, roadsides and rail tracks with herbicide-resistant rapeseed (called canola in the US) in Japan and Canada that has all but decimated Western Canada’s organic trade of the crop (see [8] Transgenic Contamination of Certified Seed Stocks, SiS 19). Coincidentally, Maurice Maloney, current director of Rothamsted Institute, had developed glyphosate-tolerant rapeseed.

Herbicide-tolerant GM wheat has already contaminated non-GM seed stocks in wheat samples obtained from certified seed producers in Colorado, USA [9]. GM wheat trials with a 200 metre buffer zone of pollen receptor plots did not prevent pollen-mediated genetic outflow in Switzerland [10]. The buffer zone proposed by Rothamsted Institute, is for cereals not to be grown at less than 80 metres surrounding the trial field.

Additional concerns

Horizontal gene transfer is an alternative form of genetic contamination whereby transgenic DNA can be taken up by unrelated species such as microorganisms in the soil or on the plant surface. Horizontal gene transfer and recombination is the main route for generating new pathogens and spreading antibiotic and drug resistance, and genetic engineering is nothing if not greatly facilitated horizontal gene transfer and recombination. Transgenic DNA is different from natural DNA; not only does it contain new combinations of genes, but also new synthetic genes that have never existed in billions of years of evolution: new coding sequences, promoters and other non-coding regulatory sequences that boost gene expression to abnormally high levels (see [11] Horizontal Gene Transfer Does Happen, SiS 38, [12] Scientists Discover New Route for GM-gene ‘Escape’, SiS 50).

The use of the bacterial vector Agrobacterium tumefaciens which is capable of infecting bacterial cells that exist in the soil and gut, as well as human cells can cause DNA mutations and possible cancer development. The application states [2]: “The plasmid backbone sequences, nptI gene [antibiotic resistance], origins of replication, border sequences etc. come originally from E. coli and Agrobacterium tumefaciens, two common gut and soil bacteria respectively and these sequences are already widespread in the soil metagenome”. They further state that “These elements may increase the rates of horizontal gene transfer and establishment in soil bacteria because they provide a theoretical mechanism for homologous recombination and selection.” Despite this admission, risks during the trial are estimated “negligible”, and such elements are already “common” in bacterial species anyway.

Other research at Rothamsted

Much of the media attention surrounding the Institute has aimed to distinguish it from the private corporations that have commercialised most GM crops. Although Rothamsted is a public institution with research money awarded by the government’s BBSRC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council), it has a long history of chemical agriculture and has commercialised herbicides in the past, including 2,4-D which is a component of the notorious Agent Orange pesticide used in the Vietnam war. They also invented pyrethroid insecticides, which are the most common insecticides today. Indeed, the Institute was founded in 1843 by John Bennett Lawes, who a year earlier had opened up a chemical fertilizer company that marked the beginnings of the chemical fertilizer industry. Rothamsted was set up to investigate the differences between inorganic and organic farming.  Their links to chemical agriculture is not new or unusual. A recent publication supporting the use of paraquat herbicides for sustainable agriculture was timed with the EU-wide re-introduction in 2003 after individual nations had banned it due to health concerns. In 2007, an EU-wide ban was put in place with links to Parkinson’s disease amongst the major concerns.

That is not all.

Rothamsted’s links to corporate agribusiness

As proudly stated on Rothamsted Institute’s website:

“Our portfolio of industrial partners includes global agri-biotech companies such as Syngenta, Dow Agrosciences, Bayer Agriculture, BASF and Monsanto and multinational organisations such as British Sugar and Novozymes Biologicals Inc. Examples of collaboration with Small and Medium-Size Enterprises include work done with VSN International, BioForsk and ADAS. We also have projects funded by industrial organisations such as the National Farmers Union and the British Beet Research Organisation. The quality and impact of our input is such that we have been very successful in building long-term relationships with our partners.”

Can one still believe Rothamsted’s GM wheat is a mere experiment with no commercial objectives in mind? Should taxpayer’s money be hijacked to support GM development for corporate agribusiness without regard for potential damage to health and environment?

References

1. Rothamsted Research Institute, 11^th June 2012 http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/Content.php?Section=AphidWheat
2. APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO RELEASE A GMO – HIGHER PLANTS. Study of aphid, predator and parasitoid behaviour in wheat producing aphid alarm pheromone. Defra.gov.uk. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/gm/regulation/documents/11-r8-01-app-a.pdf
3. Ho MW. Transgenic lines proven unstable. Science in Society 20, 35, 2003
4. Beale MH, Birkett MA, Bruce TJ, Chamberlain K, Field LM, Huttly AK, Martin JL, Parker R, Phillips AL, Pickett JA, Prosser IM, Shewry PR, Smart LE, Wadhams LJ, Woodcock CM, Zhang Y. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2006, 103, 10509-13.
5. Cummins J. Kanamycin still used and cross-reacts with new antibiotics. ISIS report, 27 May 2001, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/kanomycin.php
6. Kunert G, Reinhold C, Gershenzon J. Constitutive emission of the aphid alarm pheromone, (E)-β-farnesene, from plants does not serve as a direct defense against aphids. BMC Ecology2010, 10, 23-35.
7. de Vos M, Cheng WY, Summers HE, Raguso RA, Jander G. Alarm pheromone habituation in Myzus persicae has fitness consequences and causes extensive gene expression changes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2010, 107, 14673-8.
8. Cummins J. Transgenic Contamination of Certified Seed Stocks. Science in Society 19, 48, 2003
9. Gaines T, Preston C, Byrne P, WB Henry, Westra P. Adventitious Presence of Herbicide Resistant Wheat in Certified and Farm-Saved Seed Lots.
10. Foetzki A,  Quijano CD,  Moullet O,  Fammartino A,  Kneubuehler Y,  Mascher F,  Sautter C,  Bigler F. Surveying of pollen-mediated crop-to-crop gene flow from a wheat field trial as a biosafety measure. GM Crops Food2012, 3 [Epub ahead of print]
11. Ho MW and Cummins J. Horizontal gene transfer from GMOs does happen.Science in Society 38, 22-24, 2008
12. Ho MW. Scientists discover new route for GM-gene ‘escape’.Science in Society 50, 14-16, 2011.

Source

Predatory insects welcomed (Image: Zhou Chao/EPA/Corbis)

Environmentalists might one day run barefooted through insect-rich fields of genetically modified crops. At least, they might if the conclusions of a two-decade study in China hold up.

Kongming Wu of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing and colleagues looked at the impact on surrounding farms of Bt cotton, a GM crop that protects itself against bollworm larvae by making its own pesticide.

As pesticide sprays were no longer needed, beneficial predator insects such as ladybirds, spiders and lacewings could thrive and spill over onto neighbouring farms, where they ate aphids. This reduced the amount of pesticides neighbouring farmers used.

“Transgenic Bt crops with less insecticide use can promote population increases of predators in the whole agricultural landscape,” says Wu.

Protesters in the UK recently threatened to disrupt a trial at Rothamsted Research in Harpenden of a GM wheat that gives off a scent repelling aphids. Rothamsted’s John Pickett said the Chinese research is exciting because it shows that certain GM crops can spread beneficial insects to neighbouring farms.

DISPELLING MYTHS

“This is another chapter of research dispelling the myth that GM crops are environmentally damaging,” says Julian Little, chairman of the UK’sAgricultural Biotechnology Council, which backs GM crops.

In 2010, Paul Mitchell of the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that US growers of conventional maize benefitted economically from having an adjacent Bt maize farm, because it suppressed maize-damaging pests. “This paper is part of the ongoing research documenting the environmental, economic and social benefits that Bt crops generate for more than just their users,” he says.

But the Soil Association, which represents organic farmers in the UK, says earlier data from the same Bt cotton study shows that new insect pests may emerge, forcing farmers to increase crop spraying

When thin green seedlings, it’s more easy to grasp the surprising fact that corn belongs to the grass family, Poaceae. This is a Greek word, though  surprisingly unrelated to another  Greek word, poesis, to create.  Yet the Indigenous Mexicans call themselves “the people of the maize”, as if the plant created them. A poetic notion maybe,  but haven’t those other grasses – sorghum, millet, rice, oats, barley, wheat – made our culture and society, for better and worse?

Into the beds will go “Golden Bantam”, one of the few commercially available open-pollinated (i.e. not F1 Hybrid) cultivars, and “Bloody Butcher”, a non-commercially available, heritage variety, whose kernel colour is, as the name implies, every bit as bloody as the mission to civilise the New World is.

At the weekend, some of us headed out to Rothamstead, to a very different Poaceae patch. There, More than 400 growers, bakers and families from across England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France and Belgium marched against the return of open air trials of genetically modified (GM) wheat.

It’s in the make-up of well-intentioned, and well bankrolled, scientists to narrow the debate about genetic engineeering to small details, so that you can’t see the maze for the maize. Standing back allows us to see the bigger design, and ask more fundamental questions. Like,  should we work with nature, or against it? Should life forms be patented, commodified, privatised? Who should be more in control of food production: the corporation, or the  truly creative people, the producers?

With our hands, we create; with our hands, we destroy. We plant; and we weed. There is a time to give flowers; and, as the renewed GM campaign so rightly points out, a time to take the flour back.

Stop the open-air release of GM Wheat that contains genes ‘most similar to that of a cow’.

Rothamsted have planted a new GM wheat trial designed to repel aphids. It contains genes for antibiotic-resistance and an artificial gene ‘most similar to a cow’.  Wheat is wind-pollinated. In Canada similar experiments have leaked into the food-chain costing farmers millions in lost exports. There is no market for GM wheat anywhere in the world.

This experiment is tax-payer funded, but Rothamsted hope to sell any patent it generates to an agro-chemical company. La Via Campesina, the world’s largest organisation of peasant farmers, believe GM is increasing world hunger. They have called for support resisting GM crops, and the control over agriculture that biotech gives to corporations.

‘Take the Flour Back’ will be a nice day out in the country, with picnics, music from Seize the Day and a decontamination. It’s for anyone who feels able to publically help remove this threat and those who want to show

their support for them.

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/advocacy/82021

The African Biodiversity Network and The Gaia Foundation support the call from Take the Flour Back for Rothamsted Research Institute to remove their GM wheat crop to prevent contamination. Gathuru Mburu, Coordinator of the African Biodiversity Network (ABN) will be speaking at the “Take the Flour Back” rally at Rothamsted on 27th May.

by The ABN and The Gaia Foundation … Global agriculture has changed more in the past 50 years than in the previous 10,000. Nowhere is this conflict more poignant than in the story of seed….This is the trailer for the film Seeds of Freedom. The film explores the history of the corporate takeover of seed, and the impact that this is having on communities across the world. The loss of indigenous seed goes hand in hand with the loss of biodiversity, the loss of cultural traditions and practices, the loss of livelihoods and the loss of independence in agriculture.

—————————–

Gathuru Mburu, who will be in the UK at the end of May for the launch of a new film about the corporate takeover of seed through GMOs, has made the following statement:

“It gives us strength to see the British people standing up to the irresponsible release of genetically modified foods into the ecosystem. We have seen the negative effects that crops like this have had in India, where GM cotton crops failed in their claims of pest resistance, and sent farmers into spiraling debt. Experimenting with staple crops is a serious threat to food security. Our resilience comes from diversity not from monocultures of GM. Seed saving is the basis of African farmers’ security and livelihood, but patented GM crops forbid farmers from saving their own seed. This is a violation of Farmers’ Rights. Furthermore, there is always a strong likelihood that GM will cross-pollinate with our crops, and that we will lose our indigenous diversity forever. Indigenous seed is traditionally celebrated in African rites of passage, so GM will further erode Africa’s Rights to indigenous, cultural foods and the knowledge systems which surround these.”

Gathuru Mburu will be visiting the UK for the launch of Seeds of Freedom, a new film which exposes the corporate takeover of seed through genetic modification and patenting, and the impact that this has already had on biodiversity and farmers’ livelihoods. The film, which is narrated by British Actor Jeremy Irons, includes interviews with Dr Vandana Shiva, Zac Goldsmith Conservative MP and Caroline Lucas Green MP.

Mburu continues: “Beneath the rhetoric that GM is the key to feeding a hungry world, there is a very different story – a story of control and profit. This story is about controlling seed, and thereby the farmer, his land, and the food system. The globalisation of food markets has led to growing hunger, and the unrelenting greed of corporations who see the huge financial potential in controlling the global food system. Farmers and communities in the areas most affected by food shortages and climate change do not want GM. GM does not support a resilient, nutritious or sustainable food system. Instead it creates dependence on corporations and increased vulnerability to hunger and poverty. Actions against GM, by movements like the African Biodiversity Network, Via Campesina, and the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, are happening across Africa and beyond. The fact is that we need a diversity of genetic traits in food crops in order to survive worsening climates. Above all, people need to have control over their seeds”.

In the film Seeds of Freedom, which will be launched by The Gaia Foundation and African Biodiversity Network in London on Monday 28th May, Dr Vandana Shiva of Navdanya states “Farmers breed for resilience. And therefore they breed for cooperative arrangements. They don’t breed one crop. They know they must have many crops because the climate changes. They know they must have many crops, because nutritional needs are diverse. Once a company starts to see royalty collections from every seed, it pushes its genetically engineered crops, to replace the native crops that farmers and peasants have grown over millennia.”

Henk Hobbelink, Coordinator of GRAIN, who this week published the book ‘The Great Food Robbery’ also features in the film and asks “What are we supposed to do with these GM seeds? Seeds are supposed to be planted, multiplied, exchanged, further adapted, and so on. That’s exactly what is not allowed from the corporate mindset. The corporations sell or license us the seed to use the seed in a specific way – the way that they are interested in. Full stop.”

At the close of Seeds of Freedom, MP Zac Goldsmith asserts that the GM agenda is “nothing to do with feeding the world. It’s nothing to do with tackling some of the huge issues we’re facing today. It’s about control of the food sector, of the food economy. We need to radically change course, and return to diversity”.

Liz Hosken, Director of The Gaia Foundation has also spoken out in support of the campaign by Take the Flour Back. She says, “The contamination risk that the Rothamsted wheat trial poses cannot be underestimated. But there is also much more to this debate than what we see here in the UK. As things stand today, GM is the tool used to see out a corporate agenda for the takeover and monopoly of the global food system. The potential for profit through controlling something so essential to us all, is what really drives GMO research. Small scale, diversity-rich farming is being eroded and replaced with ever-larger monocultures deserts. This displaces farmers from their land, and huge amounts of traditional agricultural knowledge and diverse indigenous seeds are lost forever. We cannot support any trial which reinforces the myth that GM is there as a benefit to people and planet, when in reality it feeds not humans, but a greedy corporate agenda.”

Seeds of Freedom explores the history of the corporate takeover of seed, most notably through the development of GM as a means of patenting seed. The film shows how the loss of indigenous seed leads to further loss of biodiversity, which is essential for building climate resilience and establishing food justice. Alongside interviews with African farmers, the film features interviews with Dr Vandana Shiva (Director of Navdanya, author of the 2011 report The GMO Emperor has No Clothes), Zac Goldsmith MP, Caroline Lucas MP, Kumi Naidoo (Head of Greenpeace International), Percy Schmeiser (American farmer sued by GM giant Monsanto), John Vidal (Environment Editor, The Guardian), Dr Melaku Worrede (Ethiopian Scientist who has pioneered seed saving methods in Ethiopia), Gathuru Mburu (Coordinator of the African Biodiversity Network, Kenya), Liz Hosken (Director of The Gaia Foundation), and Henk Hobbelink (Coordinator of GRAIN International, who recently published The Great Food Robbery).

The final 30-minute film is being narrated by British Actor Jeremy Irons, who became the UN Goodwill Ambassador for Food & Agriculture in 2011.

UK environmentalists against the use of genetically modified (GM) crops have organized under the banner "Take the Flour Back" to organize direct action against GM wheat.

read more

Kansas wheat farmers right now are probably most worried about the threat of a late spring freeze. However, year-in and year-out, drought is the most typical concern. Scientists at Texas A&M are working to find out just where drought resistance is coming from in some of that university’s major varieties.

• The Ogallala Aquifer Program is funding a project to identify the key genetic regulators of drought tolerance in TAM 111, 112 and 304, each of which are popular in the High Plains and possess different abilities to withstand water stress. However, researchers don’t know why or how the differences in drought stress tolerance occur. Identifying where the tolerance comes from could unlock dramatic improvement in yield potential…
• Finding solutions to environmental stresses in wheat is critical to the long-term success of wheat farmers. DuPont Crop Protection, through its Crop Protection Plus program, reports that 2011 was second most catastrophic year for wheat farmers in the High Plains (2007 was the worst). The company says claims for its Crop Protection Plus program totaled more than 145,000 acres due mainly to drought and wildfire…
• Despite the challenges, DuPont  expects wheat acres to continue to increase in 2013, from Texas to North Dakota. Acres lying fallow due to wetness in the northern states will be suited for wheat production, as will acres coming out of CRP in Kansas, Colorado and Texas… 
• In the U.K., the furor over non-GM wheat is as raucous as the crowed at an Italian soccer match. Jim Moseley is finding that out firsthand; an article in the Farmers Guardian says that Moseley, president of the Food and Drink Federation in England, is pleading with politicians, consumers and food purveyors to consider the merits of GM wheat. Moseley says nearly a billion people in the world go hungry, despite increased productivity from the world’s farmers…
• The European Union is staunchly opposed to GM crops of all kinds. An outfit called “GM Freeze” believes GM wheat “…would have a profound impact on the food chain because of the constant threat of contamination from seed to plate…” …
• If you’re a fan of ”The Buzz,” you know we enjoy all wheat foods, especially beer. Among our favorites: the portfolio of wheat beers from Boulevard Brewing Co. in Kansas City. In a fun article from the Kansas City Star called, “50 Things Every Kansas Citian Should Know,” the newspaper reports that Boulevard Unfiltered Wheat is the company’s top seller. In all, the craft brewer sold some 150,000 barrels of beer last year…
• Attention, eastern Kansas Caterpillar/Challenger customers: your dealer just changed hands. Dean Ag Services, based in Chillicothe and Maryville, Missouri, was recently bought by Ziegler Ag Equipment, based in Minnesota. The purchase expands Ziegler Ag into Missouri and Kansas; the company now has 23 locations in five states. …
• A Big Ol’ Buzz Salute to our friends at AgAM in Kansas, and to Dr. Dan Thomson (pictured) at K-State. AgAM’s “Doc Talk” program will begin airing on RFD-TV at 3:30 p.m. each Monday. It’s been a long road for Bryan Hallman, who runs AgAM and is one of the industry’s good guys…
• While the wheat industry – particularly the farmer segment – is eager at the thought of an early harvest, such an event could be bad news for outdoorsmen and the state’s pheasant population, writes Michael Pearce, outdoors reporter with the Wichita Eagle. In his April 26 Outdoors Newsletter, Pearce suggests that in central and western Kansas, hen pheasants like to nest in the green wheat. An early harvest could destroy nests and young chicks, he writes…
• This week’s Land Sale features a 177 tract of irrigated cropland northwest of Halstead in Harvey County. It sold April 2. The tract included 156 irrigated and 14 dryland acres. The irrigated portion is watered with a Valley pivot, and the well pumps 1,000 gallons per minute. The buyer was to receive 50% of the growing crop; irrigated acres are planted to corn and dryland, to wheat. The tract brought $849,600 ($4,800 per acre)…
• Bidding at this sale was active, although a 127-acre tract located in Reno County that was scheduled to sell at this auction did not fetch a selling bid, according to the auctioneer. However, land in the area continues to accelerate in price. 

This week: Mining Madness, Genetically Modified Thinking and is Nature a Friend or Foe?

WEAKNESS OF POLITICAL DIRECTION

Back on track this week as we get down to the business of Future Hu-Manning the Earth. When I listen in to the Radio and the Television commercial news, there seems to be an overwhelming push against moving forward with alternative sustainable ways of managing the energy and food requirements of the planet.

Short term political strategies based on popularity and winning elections for the lowest common denominator prevail. I quote this from a current political senator. Where is a strength of leadership, regardless of its policies to promote a sense of moving forward. The politicians are weak and succumb to the need to win votes rather than govern to the needs of the future and education of sustainable culture.

Do we have the Government we deserve because we are so self interested in the immediate gratification of our everyday life? After the trip to the US I noticed a lot of criticism about Obama because he has not fixed the issues his voters wanted. I am on Obama’s side because he is a visionary and can see past his nose.

I think they need Jesus to fix it and he’s not coming.

Our Australian Government won’t make a stand for the future to make a difference, when another Coal pit will be approved, which may be the largest in the world. Not sure if my facts are correct, but where does it leave us for the future?

Crazy Clive Mining Person wants to open more  mining businesses and bring ships through the Barrier Reef which will destroy it eventually.  If only he and his mates could use their super powers for good instead of evil. ; >

What about Fracking!!  IT’S FRACKING RIDICULOUS!!

Great word!! My favorite is.. ” You Fracking Idiots!.” Well it is idiotic. Our Government giving permission for these natural gas companies to go onto anyone’s land or any land for that matter to see if natural gas seams can be located. It’s called fracking. Oh, and it is possible the water tables may be polluted by the process. So sensible. Remember we have Sun and Wind and Water, just going to waste as energy resources. And what happened to Solar Energy rebates??

ORGANIC FARMER TO SUE GM FARMER NEIGHBOUR FOR INFECTING HIS CROPS.

A Western Australian organic farmer is sueing his neighbour whose GM crops have infected his farm so much so, he has lost his organic status for his produce. Cross pollination of GM crops of course can’t NOT happen. In the US and Europe it is difficult to find a pure natural strain of some types of foods which are not GM infected. The pesticide “Round UP”  is used on GM crops which finds its way into the food chain and affects mammalian cells. I would have thought a genetically modified crop would not attract pests!! Monsanto are the world’s viral GM giant of this industry. Legislation is passed to prevent foods being labelled GM because people would not buy them. Most of us have an instinctive repulsion to such dead foods.

Have you noticed how may types of vegetables and fruits are disappearing from our shelves? I read once when we had thousands of types of potatoes, and now it is has been reduced to around 400 types, not to mention the diminishing species of many other  common garden fruit and vegetables we could eat as kids. Remember purple figs, pinky orange apricots that were as big as peaches and pineapples that smelled like exotic perfume. Who has heard of a loganberry? I write as an Australian with an issue , as the major food growers here are dictated to by the two duopolistic supermarkets to grow certain crops which have better shelf lives, due sometimes to genetic engineering. Strawberries should not be that big! How does your body recognise it’s weird DNA structure?

The energy matrix around these foods is nearly zero. Feel the difference between an organic produce store and conventional supermarket produce store. There is a significant difference in the energy you feel around you. Sounds silly? Try it.

The Monsanto Genetically Modified Company (who must have heartless aliens running it from a genetically modified race ) will sue anyone who is illegally growing their type of crop, when it appears that nature spreads GM seeds all over the place. Handy little money spinner for them. Did you know that most wheat, rice, soy and corn products you buy are from genetically modified crops? If you look at the ingredients in most processed foods, you will find wheat syrup, corn syrup and soy fillers.  These ingredients have not come into the public’s notice as a health concern yet. A lot of information is more available on colourings and preservatives.

WHY ARE WE SO STUPID?

Monsanto and other GM companies say cross pollination cannot happen due to buffer zones and blah blah blah precautions they take however, why do they have a policy to sue for crops grown illegally by other farmers? Monsanto seeds have a once only use, so each year you have to buy seed to keep producing. The seed requires pestcides to be viable and so the chemical companies keep poisoning everything to make money. This is Monsanto’s great business plan. How can anyone think this way?

This nightmare scenario was proposed way back in the 70′s, so many groups started seed saving to protect our earth’s natural bounty. (Check out SEED SAVERS at Byron Bay, run by Michel and Jude.) Back then I was horrified by such a dreadful and destructive idea. Imagine a world where nothing can grow because humans have designed a system that requires chemicals for fertilization of seeds which are otherwise sterile.

One argument for GM cropping is to feed peoples whose arid lands won’t produce. Monocultures destroy the land and soil, and GM crops are massive monocultures responsible for creating so much soil aridity. Monocultures starve many types of useful insects because those that feed from a diversity of plants cannot survive and either die or have to relocate hundreds of miles for food.

BELLA GAIA: African and South American forests burning as seen from space.

There is a project called Bella Gaia which is a superb educative documentary, which uses the NASA and Space Stations vision of planet earth. A composer has created a beautiful piece of visual art which gives us the “off ” planet view of earth. You can see the massive burning fires of forest clearing in Africa and South America from outer space. Clearing land for more monocultures, so  another continents’ ability to be self sustainable is destroyed. What companies are behind this?

WAR AGAINST NATURE...Who uses hand disinfectant every day? If you do, you have been  infected by the propaganda that nature will kill you and chemicals will save you. It is so crazy from a logical point of view. Do I want to swim in a blue pool full of chemicals or a dam full of rain water and clay molecules which make it look brown? I pick the dam.

The bees…well that is beyond a nightmare in the northern hemisphere. A DVD called “Queen of the Summer” is a great doco on how the farming industry have managed to nearly destroy the healthy bee population through mismanagement and unsustainable practices. Modifying bees genetically has weakened them so they cannot survive naturally now. Sheesh!! Fortunately Australia does not have the problem yet.

THE QUIET CONSCIOUSNESS REVOLUTION

Albeit this does not seem to be dampening the quiet revolution of consciousness. I make a great case for human stupidity which unfortunately is still my default position. However I am myself a human. What type? One who believes she is trying to make a difference, in an effort to perhaps cleanse my own conscience, because of the role I play as a human populating the planet which may, or may not survive my species. Another good word. “Con-science.”  Does this mean for or against science? I think  it means against. If your conscience is the better part of you, what does science mean? It is not called our “proscience.”

This quiet revolution of consciousness happening all over the world. The mass media is a general propogation of bad news and in many ways can diminish hope so we become a passive member of the army marching against nature. There are so many more ways to be involved in change. I say it is easy. With so many scientific and technological advances there is every reason to participate in feeding ourselves, clothing ourselves, entertaining ourselves and powering our lives with natural products already available to us. Sure there are a few billion people too many for this to be turned around quickly, but the West can take the fall and lead the way so others have more. If we make a demand for more natural products and energy, the business fiends will follow the money trail. Pay more for less that lasts.

A RACE TO THE END                                                                                                                                                                                                          If Nature and Humans were horses in a race for a sustainable future, who would you put your money on? Who has the best track record? Who is the most adapatable? Who has the most experience?  Frankly Nature is not in the race. She does not race to the end, she braces for the future. Humans race to the finish. There are enough of future humans to turn it around and create a new paradigm. The more the merrier. educate yourself. My random ramblings may wander off piste but the direction of the problem is on target. Live the Soulution.

Future Humans can live the positive future now, so the future can exist.

Use the Evolving Door.

In Great Spirits

Kerryn…PS Cozmo the dog is doing great. Needs his own blog and fan page.

The genetically modified wheat emits a pheromone which aphids generally release when they are under attack to create panic and prompt the insects to flee (alarm pheromone). As frequenly occurs in nature, some predators may use the prey chemical communication to locate preys. Similarly, this wheat also attracts some parasitoid wasps to provide a second line of defence for crops since these wasps lay eggs in the aphids killing them.

As you can see in the following video by Christine Woodcock, aphids become agitated and move away  after perceiving the alarm pheromone:

According to this assumption on GM wheat, aphids should move toward other plants… BUT…  according to a paper published some years ago in Ecology Letters (here a summary), aphids were shown to react mainly to the frequency of pheromone release and not the actual quantity present, possibly to avoid manipulation by plants. Thus, to reduce damage caused by aphids, the major insect pests in Europe, it may prove effective to apply pulses of alarm pheromone to infested fields in place of a continuous production. At the same time, a recent paper published in BMC Ecology by Grit Kunert, Carolina Reinhold and Jonathan Gershenzon  provided no support for the hypothesis that plant emission of the aphid alarm pheromone has a direct defense effect against aphids and they suggested that  if plants continuously produce EBF aphids may become habituated. In particular Kunert et al concluded that “the results of this investigation demonstrate that EBF produced continuously by transgenic A. thaliana does not act as a direct defense against aphids. The same conclusion might well be applicable to the continuous emission of EBF from other plants though more studies are necessary. (…) This may be due to the fact these transgenic plants release EBF constantly as opposed to the pulsed release caused by natural enemy attacks on individual aphids. ”

This does not imply that this trial is not interesting at all, since there is scattered evidence in the literature suggesting that alarm pheromone emission might serve as an indirect defense by attracting aphid predators and it will be very interesting to see what will happen to aphid predation. Aphids are ancient pest crop insects and I fear (or as aphidologist I’m sure) that we are at present not near to their debacle.

Reference

Kunert G, Reinhold C, Gershenzon J (2010). Constitutive emission of the aphid alarm pheromone, (E)-β-farnesene, from plants does not serve as a direct defense against aphids BMC Ecology (10)

Taxpayers should not fund environmental groups which destroy public property, Senator Barnaby Joyce said today.

ACT Police today has summoned two Sydney women to the ACT Magistrates Court to face charges relating to the destruction of a CSIRO GM research wheat crop last month.*

The charges come after the police executed a search warrant on Greenpeace headquarters in Sydney, during which police seized evidence.

Greenpeace currently benefits from a government ruling that donations to it are tax deductible under the Register of Environmental Organisations program.**

“I find it a bit of a paradox that an organisation can get a tax deduction, in the same way that St Vincent de Paul or the Red Cross does, when it has been implicated in charges relating to the destruction of taxpayer property.

“Taxpayers should not fund the destruction of taxpayer’s property. If Greenpeace is found to be implicated in the destruction of scientific research, then they should no longer receive the benefit of a tax deduction from the Australian people.

“Greenpeace has actively promoted and endorsed the destruction of public property:

We had no choice but to take action to bring an end to this experiment,” said Greenpeace Food campaigner Laura Kelly. “GM has never been proven safe to eat and once released in open experiments, it will contaminate. This is about the protection of our health, the protection of our environment and the protection of our daily bread.”***

“Sometimes they like the science, sometimes they don’t.

“I think it is very important to understand that the rule of law be maintained in regards to the respect of public property if you want to maintain a civilised society.

“The endorsement of destruction leads to anarchy.”

* http://www.police.act.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/act/2011/august/Two%20women%20to%20be%20summonsed%20in%20CSIRO%20investigation.aspx

** http://www.environment.gov.au/about/tax/reo/index.html

*** http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/news/food/A-mum-takes-action-against-GM-wheat/

More Information – Matthew Canavan 0458 709 433

The forces of the Australian far-left have left a large footprint on the Australian countenance of late. Bob Brown has been running the media gauntlet spruiking his new Labor-Green Carbon Tax, and claiming that the Australian Greens will one day enjoy major party status, while denouncing all and sundry who do not subscribe to their myopic world view. Brown has been denouncing the Murdoch Press in Australia (despite the fact that there is no evidence at present that they are connected in any way to the London phone hacking debacle), and denouncing the Abbott camp as irresponsible vandals for attempting to cast doubt on the highly divisive Carbon Tax. Vandals? Possibly. But what happens to this bristling moral outrage when the forces of the far-left are responsible for brazen and thoughtless vandalism of a far more literal nature?

We awoke today to find that Greenpeace had broken into the CSIRO overnight, and had destroyed a half-hectare of genetically modified wheat that was to set to be used in a human trial program during the coming months. GM crops are an exciting new prospect in Australia’s quest for highly water-efficient crop yields, a virtual necessity given our unsustainable trajectory on water use. This particular crop had been engineered to maximise human bowel health, but the trial process will now have to be shelved after a small group of radicals decided that their dogmatic views on GM crops were more important than the Australian national interest.

Ah, but it has ever been thus, has it not? The radical minority will ever seek to vandalise the trappings of the mainstream. Greenpeace will ever claim that GM crops are harmful to human consumption, and then trash the research before any study on human consumption can be conducted. No, the bigger question is: what kind of response to this flouting of Australian common law can we expect from a party which is trying to stake its claim over mainstream Australia?

But the silence of the Federal Greens has been deafening. It would seem that Bob Brown vastly prefers to tour the media circuit speechifying about Australian newspaper ownership rather than coming down on one side or the other of this core Green issue. Thus it falls to Shane Rattenbury, a Green member of the ACT legislative assembly, to deliver their official position on the incident:

“It’s always very controversial these sorts of actions, but you have to stand up for what you believe in sometimes … Greenpeace has clearly formed a view that the best way to both draw attention to this issue and to potentially protect the human food chain in Australia is to take this action … I’ve certainly been involved in action in the past where Greenpeace has broken the law and that has been necessary to highlight what we’ve considered at the time to be a greater issue than perhaps a simple trespass.”

Fantastic! We trade the tacit support from Bob Brown for the quite literal support of Mr Rattenbury, and all this from a party which sees itself supplanting the ALP. The Greens denounce attacks against climate scientists, yet it is seemingly fine to trash the work of GM researchers: THIS IS HYPOCRISY WRIT LARGE. If the Greens ever wish to realise their ambitions then they also need to understand that leadership entails more than proclamations of big idea, fuzzy, feel-good policies – at a minimum the Australian mainstream expect that their elected leaders will refrain from showing flagrant contempt for the bedrock of Australian law.

A submerged street near Nowshera, Kyhber-Pakhtunkhwa province. Rising water in dams could create more havoc © Abdul Majeed Goraya/IRIN

In the third week of September 2010, Huma Beg, a journalist who works in Pakistan, sent out this alarm by email: “Dear friends. I raise alarms from Pakistan and solicit your help. Floods and its consequences are bringing many potential issues and challenges at a speed which is not allowing us to debate and make right decisions.”

“A major issue that has come to light is the question of seeds as sowing season in flood and agricultural areas is between 15 Oct to 15 Nov. Monsanto and others have focused on the devastation as an immense opportunity to freely distribute their seeds. Our governments are involved as well.”

“Please raise alarm and assist if you can advice us. We are starting a campaign on “Local seed for local farmer…” using floods as an opportunity to focus on issues of genetically modified seeds. We can later tie up other potential ideas like multi cropping techniques and high value crops…dos and don’ts etc.”

“But for now seeds and non-GMO seeds are on the table. We have no time as ‘others’ are planning to flood the flood with seeds. Please help fast. Kind regards, Huma.”

Now, a release from Grain, Roots for Equity and PANAP (Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific) has confirmed Huma’s worst fears.

A man uses a large cooking pan as a boat near the Reikhbaghwala village in Rajanpur district in Punjab. Photo: IRIN News / Jaspreet Kindra

“In October, a consignment of 2,000 bags of wheat seeds was dispatched to flood-hit farmers by the Mir Khalil-ur-Rahman Foundation (MKRF) and the Imran Khan Flood Relief Fund (IKRF),” says the release. A scheme was launched to provide wheat seeds to farmers owning 25 acres of land in every flood-hit province without discrimination. Under the scheme, certified and good quality seeds were provided to farmers covering 150,000 acres of land. Also since early November, the United States government has provided about US$ 62 million to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to expand an agriculture recovery program to the Province of Balochistan. The program includes provision of seed and fertilizer to flood-affected farmers, to help salvage the winter planting seasons and restore livelihoods for farmers in flood-affected areas.”

“Sindh Chief Minister, Syed Qaim Ali Shah, has said last month that the government’s attention is focused on the rehabilitation of more than seven million flood-affected people and efforts are being made to give Rs100,000 (US$ 1,165) as well as seeds and fertilisers to each survivor family free of cost. There are reports, however, that not all of this is free, as the seeds are being tied to micro-finance packages where fertilisers and services are only provided to small farmers through loans.”

As part of its rehabilitation program, Pakistan’s agriculture ministry entered a deal with Monsanto for a large-scale importation of its Bt Cotton seeds, despite strong opposition from local seed producers and farmers groups. The Seed Association of Pakistan (SAP) has warned the Punjab government to refrain from signing an agreement with Monsanto, believing this will “annihilate national seed companies, besides causing huge financial burden on the national treasury.” The group also believes that the importation of Bt cotton seed by the Pakistani government will cost the country millions of dollars in compensatory and royalty payments.

This audio has over an hour of debate on Alex Atamanenko’s Bill C-474 that amends the seed act. There needs to be a mechanism in place to protect them from GE contamination of Non-GE crops and shipments. Alfalfa and wheat are the two main crops in question: what will happen to organic crops once GE is allowed in to Canada?

Deconstructing Dinner ‘deconstructs’ the debate as it goes along. Good reference for anyone wanting better information on this Bill.

There are other great videos on this page as well. Educate and enjoy!

You can take action on GE Wheat here: CBAN wheat

Lucy Sharratt – CBAN Coordinator <coordinator@cban.ca>

Welcome to a new year of action! 2010 will certainly be a critical
year on GM crops and foods here in Canada. GM flax contamination, GM
alfalfa, SmartStax corn, new health critiques, Monsanto’s increased
seed control, GM sugarbeet, and GM wheat are all active issues and
campaigns right now. And the industry has stepped up its PR to sell GM
as the solution to the crises of our time. Please consider your
support to CBAN and our campaigns this year. Stay tuned for new
announcements from CBAN and our Members across Canada. Thank you for
your support and action.

Was 2009 the year that the world turned against GM?

The Ecologist, UK
Claire Robinson & Jonathan Matthews

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/395845/was_2009_the_year_the_world_turned_against_gm.html

11.01.2010

Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews are co-editors of GMWatch

Despite promising the world in 2009, biotech corporations have
increasingly raised the hackles of scientists and citizens worldwide

2009 was a year in which the biotech industry, Gates and their US
Administration allies did everything in their power to drive the world
down the GM road, but it was also a year marked by remarkable global
resistance.

It was a year too in which the truth emerged more clearly than ever
about not just the severe limitations and risks of GM crops, but the
viability of the many positive alternatives to GMOs alternatives from
which the profit-driven GM-fixation diverts much needed attention and
resources.

The scene had been set in 2008 with the IAASTD report, produced by 400
scientific experts and signed up to by some 60 governments. That made
it clear that after more than 10 years of commercialisation, GM crops
had done nothing to help with the eradication of hunger or poverty, or
the reversal of the environmental degradation caused by agriculture.

The IAASTD instead championed as the way forward: agro-ecological
farming; and research conducted by the UN Environment Programme also
suggested organic, small-scale farming could deliver increased yields
without the accompanying environmental and social damage of industrial
farming. The UNEP?s analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries
found that yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic
practices had been used. In 2009 the contribution of such sustainable
approaches to cooling the planet was also widely acknowledged while
news of Monsanto?s attempts to dress up environmentally destructive GM
monocultures as climate friendly earned it a worst lobbying award.

Mainstream criticism
But what was most remarkable in 2009 was the way in which criticism of
the biotech industry went mainstream. Alarmingly for the industry,
some of the hardest hitting criticism it faced was to be found in
editorials and investigative articles that appeared in the likes of
Scientific American, the New York Times, the Associated Press and,
most astonishingly of all perhaps, the staunchly pro-GM journal Nature
Biotechnology.

And in different ways they were all making the same fundamental point
- the GM industry has been allowed to gain an unprecedented
stranglehold over the use of seeds. An editorial in Scientific
American, for instance, complained that ?it is impossible to verify
that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because
agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of
independent researchers?.

The editorial went on to note that, ?food safety and environmental
protection depend on making plant products available to regular
scientific scrutiny?, and Scientific American called on the industry
to ?immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user
agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition
of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have
unfettered access to all products currently on the market?.

Et tu, Brute?
A correspondent for an agricultural trade publication noted that
nobody in the biotech industry could provide him with a single example
of any other kind of product on the market that was protected in the
way GM seeds were from scientific scrutiny.

And the science correspondent of the Financial Times – another solidly
pro-GM publication – complained, ?Imagine pharmaceutical companies
trying to prevent medical researchers comparing patented drugs or
investigating their side-effects – it is unthinkable. Yet scientists
cannot independently examine raw materials in the food supply or
investigate plants that cover a lot of rural America?.

An article in Nature Biotechnology noted how even when research
critical of GM did get published it was met by a wall of apparently
orchestrated, ad hominem and unfounded attacks by GM proponents who,
in the words of an editor for the Entomological Society of America,
?denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk,
partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge and
is outside the ideals of scientific inquiry?.

And it wasn?t just scientific enquiry that Monsanto was exposed as
strangling. An Associated Press investigation reported on confidential
Monsanto contracts showing how the world?s biggest seed developer is
squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and
aggressively protecting its multibillion-dollar market dominance.

Farmers hit
Meanwhile disenchanted farmers pointed to how the GM giant is using
its market power to raise prices for farmers and limit their access to
non-GM seeds. And another new report showed GM seed prices increasing
so dramatically that they have already cut average farm incomes for US
farmers.

So in 2010 amidst the inevitable deluge of vacuous hype about GM being
vital to deal with hunger, poverty and the impact of climate change,
population growth, fuel scarcity and every other concern known to
humankind, nobody should be in any doubt as to what?s really at stake:
control over science, nature, food and farming.

And over that kind of stranglehold, it can only be a fight to the death.

Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN)
Collaborative Campaigning for Food Sovereignty and Environmental Justice
431 Gilmour Street, Second Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2P 0R5
Phone: 613 241 2267 ext.6
Fax: 613 241 2506
coordinator@cban.ca
www.cban.ca

Join the Global Rejection of GE Wheat! www.cban.ca/GEwheat

Donate today to support the campaign  www.cban.ca/donate