18 Dec 08 - SpicaBooks.Com/Frankenfood.html
Copyright 1999-2008 by Andrew Homer - Webmeister StarHeart
Web Designs
FrankenFood
GMO
- Genetically Modified Organisms
MENDOCINO
COUNTY BANS GE CROPS!
It's official! Mendocino
County (CA) has passed a ballot initiative making it the first county in the U.S.
to ban genetically engineered crops and animals. This is an important and precedent-setting
victory for farmers and consumers, particularly given the fact that corporate
agribusiness and the biotech industry spent over $620,000 attempting to convince
citizens to vote against the referendum (grassroots supporters of the referendum
had only $100,000 to work with, including $11,500 from the Organic Consumers Association).
Organic
and non-GMO farmers in Mendocino say the new law will help protect their crops
from potential contamination from neighboring GE fields. The success of the initiative
is already proving to be highly contagious. Humboldt County (CA) claims it's next
in line for passing a similar referendum, while farmers in the U.S. Midwest see
it as evidence that they may be able to resist the release of Monsanto's new GE
wheat. Grassroots activists across California and the nation will be meeting in
San Francisco this weekend to discuss launching similar initiatives. Similarly,
Prince Edward Island in Canada is now considering becoming a "GMO Free Zone."
Meanwhile, the biotech industry has made it
clear that it will do its best to snuff out Mendocino's GE ban with state legislative
or legal action. Informed sources have told the OCA that the California Farm Bureau
and the Gallo wine company are spearheading an effort to introduce a bill in the
California Senate that will nullify the Mendocino GMO ban and make it illegal
for other California counties to pass similar laws. OCA and its allies are planning
a major campaign to stop or defeat this legislation.
Natural Law Party's Tour of Dr Steven Druker Lead to New
Resolution of the European Federation of Green Parties (EF GP)
Mad
for Beef
"The human version
of BSE, which as the animal version, has a lengthy incubation period, has killed
about 100 people in Great Britain since 1995, when it virtually wiped out the
British beef industry." - from ABC New, 21 Mar 2001
~
~ ~
"I wrote this a while
back. It may have some illuminating information on this emergent disease.
The
understanding of protein structure may be very important in the near future. TSE,
which is ravaging Britain and now European beef industry (with the added help
of hoof&mouth) is spreading and may show up in the USA. This is a very pernicious
thing! It is a protein composed of two alpha helical chains attached by a beta
sheet. Normally this protein exists in receptors, where the alpha chain is hyrophobic
and anchors the protein in the cell membrane, and the beta sheet has a particular
folding. However the prion is the same protein, but where the beta sheet folding
is changed and further where it can catalyse other proteins to assume the "prion
folding."
The thing is that in Britain
this prion has been in the food supply for maybe 10 years. Britain has conducted
an uncontrolled experiment of releasing prions to their populations and due to
imports several hundred millions in Russia and Asia. Based on the disease rate
amongs tribes in Papua New Guinea it may be that in the not to distant future
that 500,000 Britons could be dying a year, and a probably far large number of
people in the rest of the world who ate British meat. It might be a pressing issue
in the near future to design a protein similar to a chaperone that refolds these
prions back to their proper geometry for the potentially large number of patients
who are afflicted by this disease.
Ummm...,
I would suggest that you kick the McDonalds habit! A look into the practices by
fast food joints with respect to food (when you eat a hamburger you are eating
the beef from hundreds of cows at once) a slight twinge of worry should occur.
This is doubly the case if you have children. Happy meals are potential unhappy
meal trojan horses." - from Lawrence B. Crowell, Ph.D
US Joins GM Foods Treaty Negotiators Agree on Labeling “Frankenfoods”
by
Matt Crenson - The Associated Press - Montreal - Jan 29 -
After
negotiations late into the night, delegates reached an international agreement
today on the trade of genetically modified food and other products.
Just before dawn, Colombia’s environment minister Juan Mayr announced to a conference
hall full of delegates that the yearlong stalemate had ended.
“The adoption of this protocol represents a victory for the environment,” Mayr
said, fighting back tears. “But don’t forget that this only represents the beginning.
We have still before us a great challenge.”
The Biosafety Protocol to the U.N. Convention on Biodiversity provides rules intended
to protect the environment from damage by genetically modified plants, animals
and bacteria.
The protocol
allows a country to ban imports of a genetically modified product if it feels
there is not enough scientific evidence showing the product is safe. It also provides
rules for the transport and labeling, requiring that the words “may contain living
modified organisms” appear on all shipments of genetically altered commodities,
such as corn and cotton.
Environmentalists
Are Happy
“The text
is good from our point of view - very good,” said Adrian Bebb, an environmental
activist with Friends of the Earth.
Environmentalists and a few scientific studies have raised concerns that genetically
modified organisms could wipe out native species, disrupt natural cycles and cause
other ecological damage.
The European Union and developing nations argued that countries should be allowed
to refuse imports of a genetically modified product if little is known about its
environmental effect.
But
the United States and its partners disagreed, saying many of the proposed rules
would restrict trade.
U.S.
negotiators said Saturday that they were satisfied with the final agreement.
“On balance we think this is an agreement that protects the environment without
disrupting world food trade,” said head U.S. delegate David Sandalow.
Negotiations stretched hours beyond Friday night’s deadline as delegates struggled
over the intricacies of the deal.
This
Story Was Genetically Modified
In
one of the main compromises, the United States and its supporters were able to
amend rules that would have required labels to give specific details on what genetically
modified materials are in a product.
Under the compromise, for two years after the protocol comes into effect, labels
must say only that a product may contain such materials, without specifics. During
those two years, negotiators will work out more specific labels.
Negotiators also reached a compromise on the thorny issue of how the protocol
would relate to the World Trade Organization. After months of debate over which
treaty should prevail, it was finally decided that the two should be “mutually
supportive,” with a specific statement in the document declaring that nothing
in it is “intended to subordinate this Protocol to other international agreements.”
Peter Hardstaff, a trade expert with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,
said that wording effectively leaves the relationship between the two treaties
to the WTO’s dispute resolution panel.
“This is continuing the muddle about trade versus international environmental
protection,” Hardstaff said.
Anti-GM Consensus Has Grown
Talks last February in Cartagena, Colombia, ended in disarray when the United
States and five other countries - Canada, Australia, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay—rejected
a draft agreement favored by 125 other countries.
The situation has changed since then, with major U.S. food producers such as Archer
Daniels Midland, Gerber and the Iams pet food company either demanding that genetically
modified products be segregated or refusing to use them altogether. Protests at
the WTO talks in Seattle last month also suggest that the American public has
concerns about genetically altered food.
“In the year since Cartagena, it has become obvious that the position of the [United
States’] group is increasingly isolated,” said Philip Bereano, a University of
Washington professor who has been following the talks.
Genetically modified crops are already widespread. About 70 million acres of genetically
engineered plants were cultivated worldwide in 1999. In the United States, genetically
engineered varieties account for about 25 percent of corn and 40 percent of soybeans.
Corn Growers Believe Farmers Are Being
Deceived Over the Issue of Genetically Modified Crops
January
27, 2000
Washington, PRNewswire -In an attempt
to protect the economic interests of America's agricultural producers, the American
Corn Growers Association (ACGA) is alerting farmers to the effort to deceive farmers
into planting genetically modified (GMO) crops. This deception concerns the availability
of foreign and domestic markets for GMOs. A recent statement by a spokesman for
one of the commodity associations stated that there is no clear indication of
a cutback in planned GMO planted acres for this coming season. This same person
went on to say that farmers whose grain is targeted for export may cut back on
planting GMOs while those growing for the domestic market will more than likely
increase their GMO planted acres.
"Farmers deserve better than to be misled by organizations that supposedly
work on their behalf. Everyone knows that unless you are selling grain directly
to an ethanol plant, feed lot, or feeding the grain yourself, there is no way
to determine whether grain will wind up for export or be used domestically once
it is delivered to a local elevator," said Gary Goldberg, Chief Executive
Officer of the American Corn Growers Association (ACGA). "Giving farmers
the suggestion that they should plant more GMOs for the domestic market is a cruel
hoax that will continue to cost corn growers hundreds of millions of dollars in
lost sales."
It is
very clear that farmers are turning their backs on genetically modified seeds.
A recent survey conducted at the American Farm Bureau Federation convention showed
a 24% drop in Bt corn acres for this growing season. Other forecasts have consistently
shown a sizable drop in GMO planted acres.
The uncertainty over market availability, both foreign and domestic, is driving
agricultural producers away from GMOs. In addition, the questions over legal liability
are weighing on farmers' minds, as they want to protect themselves from potential
lawsuits stemming from contamination brought about by cross-pollination.
"Under its current structure, the grain market is unable to have the level
of identity preservation for a typical farmer to know whether his or her grain
will go into export channels or be utilized domestically. To suggest otherwise
while farmers are making their seed purchases is geared to unduly influencing
their planting intentions. Producers need to make their farming decisions on their
own without false hopes and empty promises," concluded Goldberg.
Contact: Gary Goldberg, 918-488-1829, or David Senter,
202-835-0330, both of American Corn Growers Association, or acga@acga.org
US Says Biosafety Pact Should Not Supersede WTO
January
15, 2000, by Doug Palmer
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Efforts
to craft an international Biosafety Protocol later this month in Montreal should
focus on protecting biological diversity without unduly restricting trade in genetically
modified crops, U.S. and industry officials said.
The protocol should
also make clear that it does not change the rights and obligations of countries
under other international agreements, such as the World Trade Organization, the
officials said.
WTO rules prevent countries from blocking food imports
unless there is a compelling scientific reason.
The United States has
argued that prevents restrictions on genetically modified crops because U.S. regulators
have determined them to be safe.
Negotiations under the U.N. Convention
on Biological Diversity officially open on Monday, January 24. However, informal
meetings begin next Thursday and are expected to continue up to the start of the
conference.
UNITED STATES HAS MUCH AT STAKE
The outcome of the
negotiations has enormous consequence for the United States, which is the world's
largest producer of genetically modified crops. The new varieties account for
more than half of U.S. soybeans and one-third of U.S. corn crops.
European
consumer opposition to genetically modified crops sets the stage for a major conflict
in Montreal.
Developing countries also have concerns about liability
if imported genetically modified organisms (GMOs) damage their biodiversity.
Because the U.S. Senate has not ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity,
the United States does not officially have a seat at biosafety talks. It has worked
through the Miami Group of countries, which also includes Canada, Argentina, Australia,
Uruguay and Chile.
Countries first agreed to develop a Biosafety Protocol
in late 1995. They have met three times previously in Montreal and planned to
bring their work to a close a year ago in Cartagena, Colombia. That effort fell
apart over many of the same issues that are expected to divide the upcoming meeting.
ENVIRONMENTALISTS OPPOSE "SAVINGS CLAUSE"
U.S. industry
officials complain negotiators have gone into areas that countries originally
agreed not to enter.
"The Europeans, in particular, want to try
to use the protocol to override the WTO or at least set the protocol on par with
the WTO. That's something we agreed at the beginning we wouldn't do," said
Val Giddings, vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
But environmentalists say the United States is being unreasonable with its demand
for a "savings clause" that would subordinate the Biosafety Protocol
to WTO rules.
"Countries should have the right to say no or put
conditions on the imports of GMOs," said Sarah Newport, of Friends of the
Earth. That includes bulk commodities for food, feed and processing. "We
don't think there should be any loopholes or exemptions," she said.
A key issue in Montreal will be the establishment of Advance Informed Agreement
(AIA) procedures for trade in "living genetically modified organisms"
(LMOs).
The purpose of the AIAs would be to inform countries in advance
of shipments of LMOs which may pose a potential threat to their plant and animal
life.
The United States and the Miami Group argue a distinction should
be made between commodities destined for feed and food uses and LMOs which would
be released into environment, such as planting seeds and live fish.
Going
into Montreal, U.S. officials see considerable difficulties reaching a deal.
Disagreements remain on at least half of the proposed text of the protocol,
one U.S. aide said.
Natural Law Party's Tour of Dr Steven Druker Lead to 
