United States of Monsanto: GMO giant is now litigation proof

[논둑길맨발로]

United States of Monsanto: GMO giant is now litigation proof - YouTube

► 7:25► 7:25

www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5lkiTnI9V0

2013. 3. 29. - 업로더: RTAmerica

After President Obama signed the Agriculture Appropriations Bill into law on Tuesday, hundreds of thousands ...

'Monsanto Protection Act' Shines Light On GMO Controversy In America

By Connor Adams Sheets | March 28 2013 6:06 PM

The American public has slowly awakened over the past several years to the creep of genetically modified and genetically engineered crops into the food supply.

Now a provision in a bill signed into law Tuesday by President Barack Obama has thrust GMOs into the spotlight, prompting food advocacy groups, agribusiness and GMO-producing corporations to scramble to capitalize on the moment and promote their sides of the debate.

Share on facebook_like

The issue probably first gained widespread attention with the 2006 arrival of Michael Pollan’s groundbreaking book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” which introduced concerns about the potential dangers of these biotechnologies to a wide audience.

Then in 2009, director Robert Kenner released “Food, Inc.,” an Oscar-nominated documentary that picked up where Pollan left off, providing a concise entrée into a number of food-related issues, including the possible impacts of the rising preval‎ence of GMOs.

The documentary focused largely on the Monsanto Company, the huge multinational chemical/biotech corporation that has taken most of the heat in the various controversies regarding GMOs in the food supply.

HR 933, Section 735

And the issue reared its head as the focus of great concern once again this week. Obama quietly signed the HR 933 continuing resolution on Tuesday, while the nation’s attention was focused on gay marriage’s day before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The bill was needed for the federal government to avoid imminent shutdown and pay its bills, but Section 735, which was quietly slipped into it, has come under fire as food, environment and consumer advocacy groups warn that it will cripple the government’s ability to protect the food supply.

Section 735 -- branded the “Monsanto Protection Act” by its opponents -- strips federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and propagation of genetically modified seeds and crops if concerns about health risks arise during safety tests.

Monsanto found its name attached to the proviso when it came to light that Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., worked directly with Monsanto to write Section 735, as the New York Daily News has reported.

Because the provision is attached to a continuing resolution that only lasts for the next six months, it is not yet a permanent part of federal law, but opponents fear it will find its way into another law in the near future.

“Monsanto’s dirty little secret”

Dave Murphy, executive director and co-founder of Food Democracy Now, actually coined the term “Monsanto Protection Act,” and he has been leading a campaign since last year to make sure the provision didn’t find its way into law.

Food Democracy Now undertook a petition drive that gathered more than 200,000 signatures from people who wanted Obama to veto HR 933 in light of its inclusion of Section 735, and Murphy and others protested in front of the White House both before and after Obama declined to do so.

Murphy spoke with International Business Times via phone Thursday about his concerns about the effects of the “Monsanto Protection Act,” and how it fits into the larger GMO fight.

His basic argument is that Monsanto and other leading GMO companies like DuPont and Syngenta have wielded their considerable lobbying clout and political donations to sway members of Congress into introducing and passing legislation that creates an oversight-free environment for their products and activities.

Murphy says the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” is just the most recent iteration of this trend.

“This is Monsanto’s dirty little secret. This is how they work behind the scenes in closed-door meetings to basically write regulations that benefit their company and the rapid approval of their GMO, biotech products,” Murphy said. “They’ve basically avoided any serious scientific scrutiny of their crops, which has been why they’ve been adopted by farmers here in the U.S. … It’s the illusion of oversight here in Washington, D.C.”

Health risks of lax regulation

And that atmosphere of lax regulation surrounding GMOs has health consequences in the real world, Murphy argues.

Most of the world’s advanced nations -- from the European Union to China and Russia to Saudi Arabia and Peru -- require that products containing GMOs be labeled as such, while the United States, Mexico, Canada and others have failed to institute such a requirement on manufacturers.

Murphy says the failure to institute even as modest a measure of consumer protection as required GMO labeling has real consequences for public health.

As evidence for this assertion, he points to an independent 2011 study by a team of doctors at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Canada.

The study looked at the preval‎ence of Bt toxins in female patients, finding that the chemicals -- which are often implanted into GMO crops including corn -- were found in the majority of those who were surveyed.

The study looked at a small sample of Canadian women and determined that of those who were pregnant at the time of the survey, 93 percent of them had traces of Bt toxin in their blood, and 80 percent of their umbilical cords contained the chemical.

Murphy says that is just one example of why the spreading use of GMOs should be subject to independent scrutiny, as well as why authorities need to have as many tools as possible to ensure that they are safe for consumption. The codification of the “Monsanto Protection Act” goes against that argument, Murphy says.

“Openness and transparency are the bedrock of a transaction for the consumer, and Monsanto has blocked that at every turn for the past 20 years,” he said, adding later that “it’s not acceptable for corporations to write loopholes that benefit them and put the American farmer and the public at risk.”

The industry response

Thursday evening, as Monsanto yet again found itself at the center of a storm of controversy with the passage of HR 933, Kelly J. Clauss, a spokeswoman for the company, spoke with IBTimes via email to tell its side of the story.

The industry and supporters of Section 735 refer to it as the “Farmer Assurance Provision,” a moniker that points to their arguments about why the provision is beneficial.

“As we understand it, the point of the Farmer Assurance Provision is to strike a careful balance allowing farmers to continue to plant and cultivate their crops subject to appropriate environmental safeguards, while USDA conducts any necessary further environmental reviews,” Clauss explained.

Clauss' comments jive with statements made by Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican who actually ended up voting against HR 933, about why the provision provides a benefit to American farmers.

“I don’t see it other than a process of Congress trying to give farmers some confidence that when they get an ‘okay’ from the Agriculture Department that they can plant a crop and then some judge comes along with an injunction saying you can’t harvest that crop because USDA screwed up and issues an injunction and then the farmers are forced to destroy their crop,” Grassley said Wednesday, according to Brownfield Ag News.

And Richard L. Lobb, managing director of the Council for Biotechnology Information trade group, argued in a Thursday email to IBTimes that rather than harming consumers, GMOs and GEs are actually a net positive for farmers and the American public.

“The safety of foods made with ingredients from genetically engineered plants has been well-documented in hundreds of scientific studies and food safety reviews,” he wrote. “We understand that the Center for Food Safety and other activist groups are eager to seize upon any development they can find to raise spurious concerns about GE crops.  However, literally trillions of meals with GE ingredients have been consumed since these crops were first commercialized in 1996, with no ill effects on anyone attributable to genetic engineering, and that safety record will continue.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protection-act-shines-light-gmo-controversy-america-1159717

Monsanto’s Dirty War: Why Labels on Genetically Engineered Foods Won’t Cost Consumers a Dime

Post Categories: Environment

ZACH KALDVEER and RONNIE CUMMINS | Sunday, April 14, 2013, 6:05 Beijing

21 views

Comments(1) 

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printShare on gmailShare on stumbleuponShare on favoritesMore Sharing Services2Print

The biotech industry, led by Monsanto, will soon descend on the state of Washington to try their best to defeat I-522, a citizens’ ballot initiative to require mandatory labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Voters should prepare themselves for an onslaught of discredited talking points, nonsensical red herrings, and outright lies designed to convince voters that they shouldn’t have the right to know what’s in the food they eat.

Topping the biotech industry’s propaganda playlist will no doubt be this old familiar tune: that requiring retailers to verify non-GMO ingredients in order to label them will be burdensome and costly, and the additional cost will be passed on to consumers who are already struggling to feed their families.

Playing to consumers’ fears of higher food costs makes good strategic sense, especially in tough economic times. But the argument doesn’t hold water, say food manufacturers and retailers who already have systems in place for verifying non-GMO, as well as rBGH-free, trans fat-free, country of origin and fair trade. The system involves using chain-of-custody, legally binding affidavits, not expensive testing.

“We have used the affidavit system repeatedly, without undue burden or cost,” said Trudy Bialic, Director of Public Affairs for Seattle-based PCC Natural Markets. PCC, the largest consumer-owned natural food retail co-operative in the United States, uses the affidavit system to ensure their chocolate isn’t made using child slave labor, their dairy products don’t come from animals subjected to rBGH hormones, and that all seafood was harvested using sustainable sources and practices.

Trader Joe’s, a privately held chain of nearly 400 U.S. stores, confirmed that the company’s private label products, under the names Trader Joe’s, Jose’s and Ming’s, are GMO-free, though the company doesn’t label them as such. In an email, a company spokesperson said:

“When developing products containing ingredients likely to come from genetically modified sources, we have the supplier of the product in question perform the necessary research to provide documentation that the suspect ingredients are from non-GMO sources.

This documentation is in the form of affidavits, identity-preserved certification of seed stock, and third-party lab results from testing of the ingredients in question.”

Trader Joe’s performs random audits of items with suspect ingredients, using an outside, third-party lab to perform the testing, the company said. Trader Joe’s system is not unlike that of the USDA, which requires sworn statements from food producers to certify organic foods. The agency requires test samples from approximately 5 percent of products, all of which must be GMO-free in order to be certified organic. For the other 95 percent, the agency relies solely on sworn statements.

Clif Bar & Co. also requires affidavits from ingredient suppliers demonstrating they can meet the company’s stringent non-GMO requirements.

Monsanto would have you believe that verifying and labeling for non-GMO ingredients is a costly and burdensome affair, but the fact that Trader Joe’s, known for its discount prices, can provide GMO-free private label products, which reportedly account for over two-thirds of the company’s estimated annual $9 billion in sales, takes the wind out of the “burdensome” argument. That leaves the cost of adding another line of ink to a label. Trader Joe’s doesn’t yet label its private label products as GMO- free, but the company cites a lack of clear labeling guidelines from U.S. governmental agencies as the reason it doesn’t label, not cost.

Megan Westgate, Executive Director of the Non-GMO Projectconfirmed what retailers who use the affidavit system said:  “An affidavit system like what’s proposed in I-522 is a powerful way to have a significant impact on the food supply with minimal cost.”

How does the affidavit system work?

Companies selling non-GMO foods provide a sworn statement (i.e. an affidavit) to the retailer that the ingredients used are sourced from crops that aren’t intentionally genetically engineered. The affidavit, unless deliberately dishonest, protects the manufacturer and the retailer from liability in the case of unintentional GMO contamination.

Retailers are responsible only for labeling a few raw commodities that may contain GE ingredients, such as sweet corn, papaya, or squash.  In these cases, the retailer can either stick a simple label on the bin or ask their supplier for an affidavit stating that the crop is GMO free.

Under this system, no costly testing for GE ingredients is required. No burdensome government oversight is necessary. The system is inherently designed to protect small grocers and retailers, at no additional cost to the customer or taxpayer.

The beauty of the affidavit system is that it offers retailers and manufacturers a simple, easy way to comply with a regulatory model that provides consumers with the right to know what’s in their food without increasing grocery costs.  Even for manufacturers who might otherwise seek to pass on the trivial expense of relabeling to consumers, empirical studies show that the fear of losing customers in the competitive food industry will be a deterrent to raising prices. Did food costs change when we labeled calorie content?

Is the system reliable? Retailers say yes. Why would manufacturers intentionally deceive retailers only to open themselves up to a lawsuit and public relations nightmare? And the system has a proven track record. PCC Natural Markets, Trader Joe’s and Clif Bar all use affidavits, as do other manufacturers who use them for country-of-origin and no-trans fat labeling. And nearly two-thirds of the nation’s largest dairy processors use sworn affidavits from producers in order to label rBGH-free. (rBGH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone, is a synthetic, genetically engineered hormone injected into dairy cows to increase milk production).

Contrary to claims made by companies like Monsanto, states do have a constitutional right to label food. In fact, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act explicitly allows states to add language to labels so long as the federal government doesn’t require language on the same subject – a right that has consistently held up in federal court.

A chain-of-custody, legally binding affidavit labeling system empowers consumers to make more informed choices about what we eat, without increasing the costs of groceries or burdening retailers and manufacturers.  One simple label to identify foods that have been genetically engineered, often using the genes of foreign bacteria and viruses, would lead more consumers to seek out sustainable, organic, non-GMO alternatives. And that – not some phony line about increased food costs – is why Monsanto is fighting labeling.

Zack Kaldveer is assistant media director at the Organic Consumers Association.

Ronnie Cummins is founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association. Cummins is author of numerous articles and books, including “Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers” (Second Revised Edition Marlowe & Company 2004).

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/12/monsantos-dirty-war/

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Even the NY Times is now rejecting Monsanto GMO science

Jon Rappoport
Activist Pos

This isn’t a leak. It isn’t a timid flow. It’s a flood.

I’m talking about about the criticism of Monsanto’s so-called science of genetically-engineered food.

For the past 20 years, independent researchers have been attacking Monsanto science in various ways, and finally the NY Times has joined the crowd.

But it’s the way Mark Bittman, lead food columnist for the Times magazine, does it that really the crashes the whole GMO delusion. Writing in his April 2 column, “Why Do G.M.O.’s Need Protection?”, Bittman leads with this:

“Genetic engineering in agriculture has disappointed many people who once had hopes for it.”

As in: the party’s over, turn out the lights.

Bittman explains: “…genetic engineering, or, more properly, transgenic engineering – in which a gene, usually from another species of plant, bacterium or animal, is inserted into a plant in the hope of positively changing its nature – has been disappointing.”
As if this weren’t enough, Bittman spells it out more specifically: “In the nearly 20 years of applied use of G.E. in agriculture there have been two notable ‘successes,’ along with a few less notable ones. These are crops resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (Monsanto develops both the seeds and the herbicide to which they’re resistant) and crops that contain their own insecticide. The first have already failed, as so-called superweeds have developed resistance to Roundup, and the second are showing signs of failing, as insects are able to develop resistance to the inserted Bt toxin — originally a bacterial toxin — faster than new crop variations can be generated.”

Bittman goes on to write that superweed resistance was a foregone conclusion; scientists understood, from the earliest days of GMOs, that spraying generations of these weeds with Roundup would give us exactly what we have today: failure of the technology to prevent what it was designed to prevent. The weeds wouldn’t die out. They would retool and thrive.

“The result is that the biggest crisis in monocrop agriculture – something like 90 percent of all soybeans and 70 percent of corn is grown using Roundup Ready seed – lies in glyphosate’s inability to any longer provide total or even predictable control, because around a dozen weed species have developed resistance to it.” Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup.

Just as the weeds developed resistance and immunity to the herbicide, insects that were supposed to be killed by the toxin engineered into Monsanto’s BT crops are also surviving.

Five years ago, it would have been unthinkable that the NY Times would print such a complete rejection of GMO plant technology. Now, it’s “well, everybody knows.”

The Times sees no point in holding back any longer.

Of course, if it were a newspaper with any real courage, it would launch a whole series of front-page pieces on this enormous failure, and the gigantic fraud that lies behind it. Then the Times might actually see its readership improve.

Momentum is something its editors understand well enough. You set your hounds loose on a story, you send them out with a mandate to expose failure, fraud, and crime down to their roots, and you know that, in the ensuing months, formerly reticent researchers and corporate employees and government officials will appear out of the woodwork confessing their insider knowledge.

The story will deepen. It will take on new branches. The revelations will indict the corporation (Monsanto), its government partners, and the scientists who falsified and hid data.

In this case, the FDA and the USDA will come in for major hits. They will backtrack and lie and mis-explain, for a while, and then, like buds in the spring, agency employees will emerge and admit the truth. These agencies were co-conspirators.

And once the story unravels far enough, the human health hazards and destruction wreaked by GMOs will take center stage. All the bland pronouncements about “nobody has gotten sick from GMOs” will evaporate in the wind.

It won’t simply be, “Well, we never tested health dangers adequately,” it’ll be, “We knew there was trouble from the get-go.”

Yes, the Times could make all this happen. But it won’t. There are two basic reasons. First, it considers Big Ag too big to fail. There is now so much acreage in America tied up in GMO crops that to reject the whole show would cause titanic eruptions on many levels.

And second, the Times is part of the very establishment that views the GMO industry as a way of bringing Globalism to fruition for the whole planet.

Centralizing the food supply in a few hands means the population of the world, in the near future, will eat or not eat according to the dictates of a few unelected men. Redistribution of basic resources to the people of Earth, from such a control point, is what Globalism is all about:

“Naturally, we love you all, but decisions must be made. You people over here will live well, you people over there will live not so well, and you people back there will live not at all.

“This is our best judgment. Don’t worry, be happy.”

Jon Rappoport is the author of two explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/even-ny-times-is-now-rejecting-monsanto.html