GMO advocates rush to tell anyone who is willing to listen that GMOs are safe because they were approved by government agencies. Lobbying statistics reveal a deluge of money greasing the political and regulatory wheels, putting government seals of approval into question.
|
|||
|
Think twice before believing GMO advocates who argue that genetically engineered foods are safe because they were approved by government agencies. New report from the Union of Concerned Scientists demonstrates the many ways in which corporations influence scientific and policy making processes. 
This past November, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report cited “severe efficacy issues” with Monsanto’s Bt corn after multiple states reported “unexpected pest damage.” 
The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture is meeting to “review the causes and consequences of government over-regulation of agriculture biotechnology.” 
If approved by the FDA, a new bill introduced in California, known as The Consumers Right To Know Act, would require labeling on all genetically engineered salmon sold in California. 
Recently, Sec. of Agriculture Tom Vilsack compared biotechnology and sustainable agriculture to two sons, for whom he declared equal love. Read on to learn why biotech has in fact been the agency’s favorite “son.” USDA often sides with and promotes industry interests. Its new pilot program allowing biotech developers to prepare their own safety studies or pay for those selected by the agency will only reinforce the image of an agency regulating for the industry. 
The usual and unusual politics surrounding the deregulation of genetically engineered alfalfa. In less than a month, USDA has approved for unrestricted growth GE alfalfa and partially deregulated GE sugar beets. Now, it deregulates GE corn for biofuel production with no environmental impact study of novel proteins it contains. 
Yesterday, USDA’s Sec. Tom Vilsack announced that genetically engineered alfalfa, that has been modified to withstand repeated application of Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide, will be completely deregulated nation-wide, without any restrictions. 
The recently released WikiLeaks cables confirm Vatican’s secret support for GMOs and demonstrate the critical role U.S. diplomacy plays in the spread of biotechnology. 
Scientists at the University of Bristol have discovered a previously unknown route by which GM genes may escape into the natural environment leading to questions about the unintended patented gene flow. 
With Non GMO Month around the corner, let’s return to the basics: why avoid GMOs? Among concerns, human and animal health, environmental impact, morals and ethics, socioeconomic issues, and food labeling. Sep 8, 2010 |
 Leave a commentMonsanto says it’s cutting about 650 to 700 more jobs as it continues to restructure its business, according to a story we first read on NPR on August 31st 2010. 
The Food and Drug Administration has preliminarily determined that a genetically modified salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies is safe for human consumption but many questions about the safety of GE salmon persist. Aug 5, 2010 |
1Last week, superweeds and GMOs were on the minds of many U.S. lawmakers. Reports continued on growing pesticide resistance. Bee colony collapse problem grows. EPA considers giving environmental justice a chance. EU approved more GM maize imports, while a GMO-Free Europe conference nears. And more. 
The next generation of biotech crops are designed to express alleged nutritional benefits. However, advertising such foods as “healthy” would only confuse the consuming public. 
From the company that brought you plastics and rubber (DuPont) comes a genetically modified soybean that is altered to exhibit alleged health benefits. 
Ignoring criticis and finding their concerns to be “unlikely,” on May 12, 2010 APHIS approved for continued field tests the planting of experimental genetically modified eucalyptus trees across seven states. The claims by biotechnology corporations that genetic engineering increases crop yields, and is therefore necessary to feed a growing world population, have also recently been refuted. Failure to Yield, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists published in April 2009, is the first to evaluate in detail the overall yield effect of genetic engineering. Specifically, the report concludes “no currently available transgenic varieties enhance the intrinsic yield of any crops. The intrinsic yields of corn and soybeans did rise during the twentieth century, but not as a result of GE traits. Rather, they were due to successes in traditional breeding.” 
Monsanto claims that it is pursuing a legal battle over the right to grow genetically modified alfalfa because it is concerned with farmers, fairness and choice. Yet Monsanto’s appeals in the case have a lot more to do with protecting its right to continue selling GM seeds and pesticides. 
How can the public trust government agencies to ensure the safety of GMOs if those agencies have a long track record of failure? USDA’s regulatory track record begs the question of whether it is a government “regulatory” agency or an industry group. Monsanto’s money buys the “truth” even on public radio so that it too spreads Monsanto’s PR message “Produce more, Conserve More.” In reality, agriculture a la Monsanto is everything but conservation or sustainability. Read our analysis of Monsanto’s treatment by Marketplace. Monsanto is now the world’s leading agricultural biotechnology corporation and that spells bad news for small farmers. As many farmers have learned, they are not free from the watchful eye of the Big Brother, who, in this case, is Monsanto. |
Join GMO Journal and follow the latest headlines
    |
||
|
 |
|||
