No GE in our daily bread!
15 July 2010 www.truefood.org.au
The threat of GE wheat is looming in Australia. If chemcial companies succeed in progressing these trials to market-release stage, we could soon be eating polluted, GE food for our breakfast, lunch and dinner.
It might be the worst thing since sliced bread ...
This June, the government's gene regulator approved trials of up to 1,322 different types of GE wheat. The trials are set to take place over the next five years in Corrigin, WA; Narrabri, NSW; Adelaide, SA; and just outside of Brisbane, Queensland.
Wheat genes have been altered by the insertion of various types of bacteria and viruses, including e.coli viruses and synthetic genes, which create proteins not found in nature.
Trials of GE wheat present threats to safe Australian food and agriculture. The average Australian eats around 70 kilograms of wheat per year in common products like bread, pasta, biscuits and breakfast cereal. Contamination by GE wheat could prevent consumers in Australia from accessing safe, reliable, basic foods we eat every day.
Wheat plays an enormously important role in the Australian economy. It is our second most valuable agricultural product, bringing in $5 billion each year through domestic consumption and export trade. Polluting our wheat with GE s a huge financial risks. Wheat is the staple food of almost half the world's population and Australia is the 4th largest exporter of wheat globally. Given that consumers in many export markets reject GE, Australian farmers may lose access to those markets if our wheat fields are polluted.
Major wins! biotechs back-off in Brazil, organic beats GE in India
15 July 2010
As a member of the True Food Network, you're part of an international community fighting for the right to clean, fair food. Here's two stories of corrupt chemical companies failure to control our food supply.
On June 23, after eight years of campaigning, Bayer has withdrawn their application for GE rice in Brazil.
Brazilian farmers have made clear that they don’t want GE rice. The reasons include soaring patent costs, problems with weed resistance and consumer suspicion about having a staple crop polluted with GE. Among the farmer groups that have worked to resist GE infiltrating Brazils rice fields is the Rice Federation of Rio Grande do Sul, the region which accounts for 60% of Brazilian rice production.
It might have been more than just the Brazilian’s rejection of GE rice that made Bayer act. They are also currently taking a pounding in the US courts, having to pay out tens of millions of dollars to rice producers affected by their contamination of the US rice supply in 2006.
Another major win for clean farming was announced in India in June where in the year 2009-10, organic cotton farmers earned 200% more net income than farmers who grew Genetically Engineered cotton [Bt cotton]. Click here for a photo-essay that tells an uplifting story of the triumph of organic farming, as well as the heartbreaking impact GE is having on small cotton farmers in India.
Cancer Pesticide Link - US President's Cancer Panel Report
Critical Issues around Chemicals Raised by the Report
(by www.ofa.org.au)
Most Chemicals have not Been Tested for Safety
'Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety.'
Pesticides Linked to Many Types of Cancers
'Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian (female spouses), pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma. Pesticide-exposed farmers, pesticide applicators, crop duster pilots, and manufacturers also have been found to have elevated rates of prostate cancer, melanoma, other skin cancers, and cancer of the lip.
'Approximately 40 chemicals classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens, are used in EPA-registered pesticides now on the market.'
Testing is Inadequate
'Available evidence on the level of potential harm and increased cancer risk from many environmental exposures is insufficient or equivocal. The Panel is particularly concerned that the impact, mechanisms of action, and potential interactions of some known and suspected carcinogens are poorly defined.
Meaningful measurement and assessment of the cancer risk associated with many environmental exposures are hampered by a lack of accurate measurement tools and methodologies. This is particularly true regarding cumulative exposure to specific established or possible carcinogens, gene-environment interactions, emerging technologies, and the effects of multiple agent exposures.'
Current Testing Fails to Accurately Represent Human Exposure to Harmful Chemicals
'Some scientists maintain that current toxicity testing and exposure limit-setting methods fail to accurately represent the nature of human exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. Current toxicity testing relies heavily on animal studies that utilize doses substantially higher than those likely to be encountered by humans.'
Testing Fails to Account for Harmful Effects of Low Doses
'These data - and the exposure limits extrapolated from them - fail to take into account harmful effects that may occur only at very low doses. Further, chemicals typically are administered when laboratory animals are in their adolescence, a methodology that fails to assess the impact of in utero, childhood, and lifelong exposures.'
Testing Fails to Account for Combinations of Chemicals
'In addition, agents are tested singly rather than in combination.'
'Single-agent toxicity testing and reliance on animal testing are inadequate to address the backlog of untested chemicals already in use and the plethora of new chemicals introduced every year.'
Women Carry Higher Levels of Chemicals
'Further, studies by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that while all Americans carry many foreign chemicals in their bodies, women have higher levels of many of these chemicals than do men.'
Chemical Contaminants are Passed on to the Next Generation
'Some of these chemicals are found in maternal blood, placental tissue, and breast milk samples from pregnant women and mothers who recently gave birth. These findings indicate that chemical contaminants are being passed on to the next generation, both prenatally and during breastfeeding. Some chemicals indirectly increase cancer risk by contributing to immune and endocrine dysfunction that can influence the effect of carcinogens.'
Children also Exposed to Chemicals in Utero
'Children also can be exposed to toxins in utero via placental transfer and/or after birth via breast milk. Tests of umbilical cord blood found traces of nearly 300 pollutants in newborns' bodies, such as chemicals used in fast-food packaging, flame retardants present in household dust, and pesticides.'
Children are at Special Risk for Cancer Due to Environmental Contaminants.
'They [children] are at special risk due to their smaller body mass and rapid physical development, both of which magnify their vulnerability to known or suspected carcinogens, including radiation. Numerous environmental contaminants can cross the placental barrier; to a disturbing extent, babies are born "pre-polluted." Children also can be harmed by genetic or other damage resulting from environmental exposures sustained by the mother (and in some cases, the father). There is a critical lack of knowledge and appreciation of environmental threats to children's health and a severe shortage of researchers and clinicians trained in children's environmental health.'
Children's Cancer Rates are Increasing
'Yet over the same period (1975 - 2006), cancer incidence in U.S. children under 20 years of age has increased'
Leukemia Rates Higher for Children Exposed to Pesticides
'Leukemia rates are consistently elevated among children who grow up on farms, among children whose parents used pesticides in the home or garden, and among children of pesticide applicators. Because these chemicals often are applied as mixtures, it has been difficult to clearly distinguish cancer risks associated with individual agents.'
Concern over Food Residues being too High
'Only 23.1 percent of [food] samples had zero pesticide residues detected, 29.5 percent had one residue, and the remainder had two or more. The majority of residues detected were at levels far below EPA tolerances …but the data on which the tolerances are based are heavily criticized by environmental health professionals and advocates as being inadequate and unduly influenced by industry.'
Regulation of Environmental Contaminants is Inadequate to Protect from Harm
'The prevailing regulatory approach in the United States is reactionary rather than precautionary. That is, instead of taking preventive action when uncertainty exists about the potential harm a chemical or other environmental contaminant may cause, a hazard must be incontrovertibly demonstrated before action to ameliorate it is initiated. Moreover, instead of requiring industry or other proponents of specific chemicals, devices, or activities to prove their safety, the public bears the burden of proving that a given environmental exposure is harmful.'
Consume Food Grown Without Pesticides and Fertilisers
The report recommends that people consume food grown without pesticides, fertilisers and growth hormones.
Contrary to popular belief washing or peeling conventional produce only removes a percentage of the pesticides as they tend to be absorbed through the whole of the produce.
The most effective way to avoid pesticides is to eat organic food. A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that children who eat organic foods have lower levels of pesticides in their bodies.
The University of Washington researchers who conducted the study concluded 'The dose estimates suggest that consumption of organic fruits, vegetables, and juice can reduce children's exposure levels from above to below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's current guidelines, thereby shifting exposures from a range of uncertain risk to a range of negligible risk. Consumption of organic produce appears to provide a relatively simple way for parents to reduce their children's exposure…'
The Organic Federation of Australia is the peak body for the organic sector. For further information please visit www.ofa.org.au The OFA will help consumers identify genuine organic products during Trust Organic from August 19 to Sept 05 2010
Why are Monsanto Insiders Now Appointed to Protect Your Food Safety?
October 10 2009 By Dr. Mercola
As I write this I am in Washington DC for the International Vaccine Conference and I just did a 12 hour amazing tour of the Capitol that I will describe later, along with pictures that I will post on Facebook. So politics and patriotism is fresh in my mind.
When President Obama took office, many Americans welcomed what was supposed to be an era of much needed change not only for the economy but also for the food industry and U.S. health care system.
Time magazine put it quite well when they described current farm policy as "a welfare program for the megafarms that use the most fuel, water and pesticides; emit the most greenhouse gases; grow the most fattening crops; hire the most illegals; and depopulate rural America."
And as has been recently disclosed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), between 2003 and 2006, millionaire farmers received $49 million in crop subsidies, even though they earned more than the $2.5 million cutoff for such subsidies. In a speech given at the end of 2008, President Obama stated that this was a prime example of the kind of waste he intends to end when he takes office.
Meanwhile, American medical care is the most expensive in the world.[1] The United States spends more than twice as much on each person for health care as most other industrialized countries. And yet it has fallen to last place among those countries in preventing avoidable deaths through use of timely and effective medical care.
That the system is fatally flawed and in need of a radical overhaul is self-evident.
In fact, according to a 2008 report published in the New England Journal of Medicine[2], 90 percent of Americans believe our medical system should be “completely rebuilt” or that “fundamental changes” are required.
And many are looking toward the Obama Administration to carry out these fundamental changes -- changes that appear, on the surface at least, to be in the works.
But while health care reform is finally on the table, and an organic farm has, for the first time, been planted on the White House lawn, there are an unsettling number of foxes being appointed to guard the U.S. health care and food industry hen houses … foxes that have entirely too many connections to Monsanto, the chemical manufacturer turned agricultural giant that is slowly gaining control over the world’s population, one seed at a time.
The New Secretary of Agriculture is a Fan of Factory Farms, GM Crops and More
Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is now the Secretary of Agriculture, an appointment that took place despite massive public outcry. What was needed for an effective Secretary of Agriculture was someone who would develop and implement a plan that promotes family-scale farming and a safe and nutritious food system with a sustainable and organic vision.
What we got was yet another politician who’s already made room in his bed for the industry lobby. As the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) points out:[3]
Vilsack has been a strong supporter of genetically engineered crops, including bio-pharmaceutical corn The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor’s Biotechnology Partnership. When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows. The undemocratic and highly unpopular 2005 seed pre-emption bill was Vilsack’s brainchild. The law strips local government’s right to regulated genetically engineered seed (including where GE can be grown, maintaining GE-free buffers or banning pharma corn locally)
Vilsack is an ardent supporter of corn and soy-based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil fuel energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor. Overall, Vilsack’s record is one of aiding and abetting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) or factory farms and promoting animal cloning.
You may also be interested to know that Vilsack is widely regarded as a shill for biotech giants like Monsanto (he even reportedly often travels in Monsanto’s jet)![4]
The New Senior Advisor for the FDA is a Former Monsanto VP!
Michael Taylor, a former vice president of public policy and chief lobbyist at Monsanto Company, is the new senior advisor for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Who is Michael Taylor? He is the person who “oversaw the creation of GMO policy,” according to Jeffrey Smith, the leading spokesperson on the dangers of GM foods. Smith continues:
“If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.”[5]
The FDA policy being referred to is the 1992 GMO policy, which stated:
"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods [genetic engineering] differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."
In reality, there was major concern among FDA scientists that GM foods were in fact different than natural foods, and that their creation could prompt unknown and unpredictable health problems.
Along with being a key player in the initial pushing of GM foods onto Americans’ plates (without any required safety studies), Taylor also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST).
This growth hormone, which has been banned in Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand because of cancer risks and other health concerns, was approved in the United States while Taylor was in charge at the FDA. Smith writes:
“Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.”
Taylor’s white paper, which again was untrue as even FDA scientists acknowledged differences in the rbGH milk, allowed Monsanto to sue dairies that labeled their products rbGH-free.
Dennis Wolff, Another Monsanto “Yes Man,” May be the Next Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety
In another ironic turn of events, it’s rumored that Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff may be appointed the new Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety -- the top food safety post at the USDA.
Wolff declared that labeling products rbGH-free was against the law, and ordered all such labels to be removed from Pennsylvania. Fortunately, due to consumer demand Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell stepped in and stopped the ban on rbGH-free labels (although he did require such claims to include Taylor’s FDA disclaimer that there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows).
As Jeffrey Smith explains:
“Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania's governor is supporting Wolff's appointment is to get him out of the state -- after he "screwed up so badly" with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.”[6]
Not only did Dennis Wolff attempt to ban rbGH-free labels, but OCA points out that he has “also worked to deprive communities the right to ban toxic sewage sludge, factory farms, and GMOs.”[7]
Monsanto’s Long-Reaching Grasp on the U.S. Government
Clearly, Monsanto -- the world leader in genetic modification of seeds -- has worked its way into varying high-level positions in the U.S. government. There are other less noticeable connections too, such as Sharon Long, a former member of Monsanto’s board of directors who was part of Obama’s scientific advisory team during the election/campaign.[8]
Monsanto is a very dark cloud hanging over the future of health and food safety in the United States. This powerful entity has already managed so many reprehensible acts it boggles the mind, including: Leading the world into a new age of potentially hazardous genetic modification of seeds.Patenting not only their own GMO seeds, but also a huge number of crop seeds, patenting life forms for the first time -- without a vote of the people or Congress. Not allowing farmers to save their seeds to replant the next year -- a practice that has been done for generations. Instead, they aggressively seek out and sue farmers they suspect of doing so.
Suing farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable drift of Monsanto’s GE pollen or seed onto their land for patent infringement! Producing two of the most toxic substances ever known -- polychlorinated biphenyls, known as PCBs, and dioxin (Agent Orange).
Perhaps their biggest assault to your food supply already is what’s known as terminator technology. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to “self-destruct.” In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year.
The implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply are disastrous: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile.
If allowed to continue, every farmer in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply!
So What Can You Do?
The first step you have already done, and that is to get informed. You can continue to spread the word further by sharing this article with your friends and family.
Next, hit Monsanto and industrial agriculture where it counts ... their bottom line. By boycotting all GM foods and instead supporting organic (and local) farmers who do not use Monsanto’s GM seeds, you are using your wallet to make your opinions known.
This means abstaining from virtually all processed food products (most are loaded with GM ingredients) and sticking to fresh, locally grown, organic foodstuffs instead.
www.mercola.com
ORGANIC FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA www.ofa.org.au
Pesticide News - Endosulfan Safety Again in Question -
Possible Links to Two-Headed Fish Found in Noosa River
OVERSEAS research has discredited the safety assessment data used by the national pesticides authority to justify using one of the world's most toxic crop sprays, endosulfan.
Still permitted for horticultural use in Australia to control insects and mites, endosulfan has been banned in more than 50 countries, including all 27 members of the European Union.
In January, New Zealand banned the pesticide's use and farmers were given 12 months to surrender stockpiles.
In April, the US Environmental Protection Agency began public consultation to consider a similar ban.
Australia's National Toxics Network has amassed research that has linked endosulfan to breast cancer, immunosuppression and birth defects.
The organochlorine compound is suspected of disrupting the endocrine system. It persists in the human body and is passed to the next generation across the placenta and in breast milk.
Endosulfan contamination has not been ruled out as a possible cause for two- and three-headed fish found in the Noosa River this year.
Next month, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, to which Australia is a signatory, will consider moving towards a gradual global ban.
Despite growing opposition to endosulfan's use, however, the Australian regulator, which is funded by agribusiness, has resisted persistent calls for a national ban.
Although a 2005 review by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority imposed new restrictions and conditions, endosulfan is permitted for use on a wide range of crops, based on safety data compiled by the EPA in 2002.
Now research from the University of Pittsburgh has found serious flaws in the methodology the US regulator used to test endosulfan's safety risk.
The four-day testing period the EPA used failed to account for the toxin's long-term effects, the University of Pittsburgh researchers concluded in the September edition of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. When tracked for an additional four days after the exposure had finished, the new research found a mortality rate of between 50 and 97 per cent.
The pesticides authority would not comment on the Pittsburgh study.
A spokesman said the authority's environmental and health advisory agencies were assessing several new studies.
"Endosulfan is used differently and in different situations, in Australia than in other countries," the spokesman said. "Such differences in use result in different risk profiles."
The Agriculture Minister, Tony Burke, said he would seek advice from his department on the latest findings.
"I have been repeatedly assured that there are extensive regulations on the use of endosulfan in Australia and the [authority] has so far decided to maintain current restrictions on its use," he said.
Source: KELLY BURKE, Rural Press 21/09/2009
|
Organic News
