Power grab, anyone?

What do Monsanto and Egypt’s new President Morsi have in common?  Both are trying to execute big, sweeping power grabs.  In Monsanto’s case, it is happening during the holiday lame duck session of congress.  Very stealthfully Monsanto  got their proposed law attached as a rider to the original House 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill.

If passed, this law  would allow new genetically engineered crops to be planted even when courts rule that the US Department of Agriculture has approved them illegally.  Read about the bill.

In other words, good-bye farmer’s choice to plant non-GMO crops and hello full immunity from federal law for Monsanto.

Source:  Organic Consumer’s Association:  Organic Bytes and The Monsanto Rider:  Are biotech companies about to gain immunity from federal law?http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_64709.shtml

ahh, the good new days…

My chile dilemma

After discovering this morning that I had a bag of dried black beans in my pantry I had the ambitious idea to make a pot of non-GMO chile.  Of course the first thing I had to do was check to see if I had everything I needed at home.  It’s always a plus if I don’t have to go shopping!

Organic coconut oil for sautéing onion and celery – check.
Organic ground beef – check.
Organic tomato sauce – check.
Organic tomatoes – check.
Organic celery – check.
Onion – check (conventional onions are on the Clean 15 list).
Spices – check.

Uh-oh… tomato paste?  Do I have it?  Ah, here is a can.  Hy-top brand, the store brand from Winco Foods.  It is definitely not organic but does it come from GM tomatoes?  Nothing I can read on the can will tell me.  I decided to google “tomato paste + non-GMO”.  What came up was a little blurb from a website in the UK.

Tomato paste can also be made from 6 or 7 varieties of tomato, so the only way to tell if your paste is completely GM-free is to go back to the source of the tomatoes and find out which types were planted in the first place.

Alternatively, you could just look at the packet – UK law says that all GM foods must be clearly labelled!

source:  http://archive.planet-science.com/text_only/outthere/foodtech/tomato.html

Guess what folks?  Here in the US we don’t have the option to just “look at the packet” because our genetically modified foods don’t require a label.  At this point, if I really want to be a purist, I have to get in the car and drive to a store where I know I can get organic tomato paste, thereby using gas and other valuable resources.

It shouldn’t be this difficult!

What does the “Human Genome Project” say about GMOs?

I know I know – almost every word I post on this blog is biased against GMOs (genetically modified organisms).  Ok, so, I’m going to back off for just a bit and play nice.  I understand that my personal bias can be an instant turn-off to someone who might otherwise be curious about this topic but doesn’t react well when, upon first sight of my home/archives page, gets an earful from me about boycotting products or how evil Monsanto is.

So just this evening I started perusing the internet for articles that contain balanced and objective information about the subject of this blog.

I did find what I believe is a very balanced and informative page at http://genomics.energy.gov,  parent site for the Human Genome Project – the effort coordinated by the US Department of Energy, the National Institute of Health and a host of others – to identify all genes in human DNA.

I’d first like to list all the terms that are used quite interchangeably when it comes to the topic of GMOs, be they used correctly or not:  genetic modification (GM), biotechnology, genetic engineering (GE), recombinant DNA technology, transgenic, transgenic organism, transgene, transgenesis.

I’m sure there are more but it’s a start.  Please read on:

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS AND ORGANISMS

What are Genetically Modified (GM) Foods?

Although “biotechnology” and “genetic modification” commonly are used interchangeably, GM is a special set of technologies that alter the genetic makeup of organisms such as animals, plants, or bacteria. Biotechnology, a more general term, refers to using organisms or their components, such as enzymes, to make products that include wine, cheese, beer, and yogurt.

Combining genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology, and the resulting organism is said to be “genetically modified,” “genetically engineered,” or “transgenic.” GM products (current or those in development) include medicines and vaccines, foods and food ingredients, feeds, and fibers.

Locating genes for important traits—such as those conferring insect resistance or desired nutrients—is one of the most limiting steps in the process. However, genome sequencing and discovery programs for hundreds of organisms are generating detailed maps along with data-analyzing technologies to understand and use them.

In 2006, 252 million acres of transgenic crops were planted in 22 countries by 10.3 million farmers. The majority of these crops were herbicide- and insect-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and alfalfa. Other crops grown commercially or field-tested are a sweet potato resistant to a virus that could decimate most of the African harvest, rice with increased iron and vitamins that may alleviate chronic malnutrition in Asian countries, and a variety of plants able to survive weather extremes.

On the horizon are bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as hepatitis B; fish that mature more quickly; cows that are resistant to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease); fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties.

In 2006, countries that grew 97% of the global transgenic crops were the United States (53%), Argentina (17%), Brazil (11%), Canada (6%), India (4%), China (3%), Paraguay (2%) and South Africa (1%). Although growth is expected to plateau in industrialized nations, it is increasing in developing countries. The next decade will see exponential progress in GM product development as researchers gain increasing and unprecedented access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects.

Technologies for genetically modifying foods offer dramatic promise for meeting some of the 21st Century’s greatest challenges. Like all new technologies, they also pose some risks, both known and unknown. Controversies surrounding GM foods and crops commonly focus on human and environmental safety, labeling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation (see GM Products: Benefits and Controversies, below).

---

GM Products: Benefits and Controversies

Benefits

• Crops
  • Enhanced taste and quality
  • Reduced maturation time
  • Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
  • Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
  • New products and growing techniques
• Animals
  • Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency
  • Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
  • Improved animal health and diagnostic methods
• Environment
  • “Friendly” bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
  • Conservation of soil, water, and energy
  • Bioprocessing for forestry products
  • Better natural waste management
  • More efficient processing
• Society
  • Increased food security for growing populations

Controversies

• Safety
  • Potential human health impacts, including allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects
  • Potential environmental impacts, including: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
• Access and Intellectual Property
  • Domination of world food production by a few companies
  • Increasing dependence on industrialized nations by developing countries
  • Biopiracy, or foreign exploitation of natural resources
• Ethics
  • Violation of natural organisms’ intrinsic values
  • Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
  • Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
  • Stress for animal
• Labeling
  • Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
  • Mixing GM crops with non-GM products confounds labeling attempts
• Society
  • New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries

  Source:  http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml
  A few personal comments:  I do have an issue with the terms “friendly” bioherbicides and bioinsecticides.  To my knowledge, there is nothing “friendly” about Roundup nor Bt, the GM toxin that kills bugs when they bite into corn.  Next, weeds are becoming more resistant to the Roundup sprayed in and around the crops.  A new “superweed” is developing.  This is causing the need for more and more spraying to be done.  It has also been evident in my research that animals are less healthy when eating GM feed, not more so.  There have been documented cases of sterility in livestock after being given a genetically modified diet.

  Of course, I am biased and have freely admitted that.  I do believe that the above article has succeeded in presenting a balanced view of GMOs.

And the list groweth

I have already started my own personal list of products I am boycotting because they came out strongly against labeling of GMOs (in other words, they gave cash, BIG cash to defeat California Prop 37, the Just Label It ballot initiative).  I keep finding more complete and detailed lists and let me tell ya, it is surprising.  Some brands are so clever with packaging and product image that you just assume they couldn’t be an off-shoot of of a mega-conglomerate but come to find out, that’s precisely what they are.  Case in point:  look at the photo below of this Dagoba brand organic baker’s chocolate.  Though it originally was an organic product with integrity, and is still made in a small factory in Ashland, Oregon, it was bought by Hershey in 2006.   Wolf in sheep’s clothing!

 

 

Please join me in boycotting the “organic” products listed below – owned by the largest food and beverage companies in the world.   Click here for a comprehensive list of ALL grocery products owned by companies who helped defeat Prop 37. 

If we won’t buy this stuff, they will have to change their tune.  It is our free market system at its best.  Our pocketbooks are the most powerful vote we have.

“Organic” product list:

• PepsiCo (Donated $2.5M): Naked Juice, Tostito’s Organic, Tropicana Organic • Kraft (Donated $2M): Boca Burgers and Back to Nature • Safeway (Member of Grocery Manufacturers Association, which donated $2M):”O” Organics • Coca-Cola (Donated $1.7M): Honest Tea, Odwalla • General Mills (Donated $1.2M): Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar • Con-Agra (Donated $1.2M): Orville Redenbacher’s Organic, Hunt’s Organic, Lightlife, Alexia • Kellogg’s (Donated $791k): Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms, Gardenburger  • Smuckers (Donated $555k): R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic • Unilever (Donated $467k): Ben & Jerry’s • Dean Foods (Donated $254k): Horizon, Silk, White Wave

Source:  Organic Consumers Association

Hard to believe there is anything left we can eat!  I’m glad I just canned some locally grown, 100% organic roasted veggie sauce!  I know what’s in that!

Share this:

GMO labeling initiative getting close to home!

I live in the Portland metro area which shares the banks of the mighty Columbia river with Washington state, the newest state to get on board the Label GMOs (Label It Washinton, Yes on I-522) train.  I couldn’t be more thrilled that the push to get genetically modified foods labeled has taken firm roots in Oregon’s neighbor to the north!  All the momentum gained during the Prop 37 battle in California is fueling this newest endeavor.  And in Washington, it’s not just consumers who want labeling, but organic and even some conventional farmers, ranchers and dairies.  Both Oregon and Washington are a haven for farmer’s markets, co-ops, organic produce clubs and the like, so it is no surprise that support is in plentiful supply.

I recently posted that all the attention given to the GMO issue because of Prop 37 in California, both good and bad, was a good thing.  Even the barrage of TV ads against labeling paid for by the biotech and food industries generated the kind of publicity that makes the average consumer take notice.   So many more people are now becoming aware that they’ve been eating GMO food since 1994!

In addition to that,  Kaiser Permanente, the nation’s largest managed health care organization, has published a recent article in their Northwest regional Partners In Health newsletter (originally reported here by WillametteLive.com, a local news organization) with a clear warning to avoid GMOs as much as possible.  Kaiser is my hero for speaking up about this issue.  It’s high time a big organization took sides and spoke out!

 
Here is recent news from The Organic Consumer’s Association, one of the spearheads of the labeling movement.  The association moves their focus from California to Washington!  Oregon has an initiative started as well, but it is not as far along as Washington’s is.

20 questions about GMOs

20 QUESTIONS ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS answered by the world health organziation (who)

These questions and answers have been prepared by WHO in response to questions and concerns by a number of WHO Member State Governments with regard to the nature and safety of genetically modified food.

Q1. What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species.

Such methods are used to create GM plants – which are then used to grow GM food crops.

Q2. Why are GM foods produced?

GM foods are developed – and marketed – because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both. Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted by producers so have concentrated on innovations that farmers (and the food industry more generally) would appreciate.

The initial objective for developing plants based on GM organisms was to improve crop protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides.

Insect resistance is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (BT). This toxin is currently used as a conventional insecticide in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. GM crops that permanently produce this toxin have been shown to require lower quantities of insecticides in specific situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high.

Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields.

Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides used.

Read the remaining questions here.

Avoid GMOs, says largest US health care organization

Kaiser Permanente, the biggest HMO (health maintenance organization) in the country, has come out with an article in their Fall 2012 Northwest Partners in Health newsletter advising members to steer clear of GMOs.  Here are some highlights of the article:

What do soda, canned chicken soup, margarine, and corn flakes have in common? They all contain genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

GMOs have a piece of DNA from a difference species, such as bacteria or viruses, spliced into their DNA. Genetically engineered corn, for example, has DNA added so that it has a pesticide built right into it. This process creates a new species of plant that would have never occurred in nature.

WHERE DO YOU FIND GMOs?
GMOs have been added to our food supply since 1994, but most people don’t know it because the United States does not require labeling of GMOs. As of 2012, most corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, and sugar beets are genetically modified. Nearly 80 percent of processed food and most fast food contain GMOs.

Despite what the biotech industry might say, there is little research on the long-term effects of GMOs on human health. Independent research has found several varieties of GMO corn caused organ damage in rats. Other studies have found that GMOs may lead to an inability in animals to reproduce.

Here are several ways you can help limit your exposure to GMOs:

• Buy organic. All USDA Certified Organic foods are GMO-free.
• Avoid foods that contain nonorganic soy, corn, and canola or cotton-seed oil.
• Look for the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal.
• Ask your local market. For example, Trader Joe’s produce and Trader Joe’s labeled foods are GMO-free; Whole Foods Market’s 365 Everyday Value products are sourced to be GMO-free.
• Download the ShopNoGMO app.
• Visit nongmoshoppingguide.com and nongmoproject.org

References
G.E. Seralini, et al. “New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize revels signs hepatorenal toxicity,” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 52: (2007) 596-602
A Kilic and M.T. Akay “A three-generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation,” Food and Chemical Toxicology 46 (2008) 1164-1170
A. Velimirov, et al. “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long-term reproduction studies in mice,” Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV Band (March 2008)
www.biosicherheit.de/pdf/aktuell/zentek_studie_2008.pdf”>www.biosicherheit.de/pdf/aktuell/zentek_studie_2008.pdf”>www.biosicherheit.de/pdf/aktuell/zentek_studie_2008.pdf (*)
* Corrected URL

See a snapshot of the full article along with some commentary here at the WillametteLive.com website. 

___________________________________________________

My own personal take?  I am equally surprised and delighted that such a huge organization would take a strong stand like this.  My cynical side tells me to stay tuned for the fall-out.  I half expect Kaiser to recant but I really hope that doesn’t happen.

(FYI:  WillametteLive.com is part of Willamette Media, the parent company that also publishes the Salem Weekly newspaper, covering the central Willamette Valley in Oregon.)

And the GMO-labeling movement marches on…

There is a great irony that has occurred as a result of the recent defeat of California’s GMO-labeling proposition 37.   The successful $46 million effort by multi-national biotech and food companies to defeat the proposition has helped to shine a big national spotlight on the issue of genetically modified food.  In other words, thanks guys for the free publicity!

It appears that 30 states have jumped on the Just Label It  bandwagon and under the new banner Coalition of States for Mandatory GMO labeling, have begun building labeling campaigns.  In a Huff Post article, author Ocean Robbins of FoodRevolution,org has included several links and information about where the GMO-labeling movement is headed.

Another article from Supermarket News gives brief descriptions of where both sides of the issue find themselves post-election.  One very promising piece of news that has resulted from all the hoopla is the beginnings of real consumer demand for food that is non-GMO and labeled as such.  The non-GMO project facilitates voluntary verification of non-GMO status.

When you look at the defeat of Prop 37 this way, it really looks like a winner!