(Beyond Pesticides, January 19, 2010) A study conducted by the Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and the Universities of Caen and Rouen in France shows that three genetically modified (GM) crops have numerous adverse health effects on lab rats. The study analyzes raw data initially gathered by Monsanto to gain approval for consumption in the United States and Europe. The three crops used, NK 603, MON 810 and MON 863, are varieties of corn available in food and feed all over the world. Both MON 810 and MON863 are engineered to synthesize Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) toxins, a type of insecticide, and NK 603 is engineered to be resistant to the broad spectrum herbicide glyphosate, which Monsanto sells under the brand name Roundup. All three crops show varying levels of adverse health effects, primarily in the liver and kidneys, in addition to the heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells. Researchers were assisted by Greenpeace in acquiring the data analyzed. Under a European Union directive, Monsanto should have made their raw data publicly available, but Greenpeace lawyers had to obtain some of the data through court action. The study sharply criticizes Monsanto’s data analysis and conclusions, and calls […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 28, 2009) In a case brought by Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Earthjustice representing a coalition of farmers and consumers, a federal court ruled September 23, 2009 that the Bush Administration’s approval of genetically engineered (GE) “RoundUp Ready” sugar beets was unlawful. In this case, Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. C 08-00484 JSW (N.D. Cal. 2009), the court ordered the U.S. epartment of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct a rigorous assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of the crop on farmers and the environment. The decision follows on the heels of a June 2009 decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the illegality of the USDA’s approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered alfalfa. The federal district court for the Northern District of California ruled that the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it failed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before deregulating sugar beets that have been genetically engineered (GE) to be resistant to glyphosate herbicide, marketed by Monsanto as Roundup. Plaintiffs CFS, Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club, and High Mowing Seeds, represented by Earthjustice and CFS, filed suit against APHIS in […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 30, 2009) How much do we know about the food we buy at our local supermarkets and serve to our families? In Food, Inc., producer-director Robert Kenner and investigative authors Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation) and Michael Pollan (The Omnivore’s Dilemma) lift the veil on the U.S. food industry — an industry that has often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihoods of American farmers, the safety of workers, and our own environment. The movie reveals how a handful of corporations control our nation’s food supply. Though the companies try to maintain the myth that our food still comes from farms with red barns and white picket fences, our food is actually raised on massive “factory farms” and processed in mega industrial plants. The animals grow fatter faster and are designed to fit the machines that slaughter them. Tomatoes are bred to be shipped without bruising and to stay edible for months. The system is highly productive, and Americans are spending less on food than ever before. But, the film asks, at what cost? Cattle are given feed that their bodies are not biologically designed to digest, resulting in new strains of E. coli bacteria, which […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2009) Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit re-affirmed its previous decision upholding a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically-engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa pending a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Court determined that the planting of genetically modified alfalfa can result in potentially irreversible harm to organic and conventional varieties of crops, damage to the environment, and economic harm to farmers. Although the suit was brought against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics entered into the suit as Defendant-Intervenors. In September 2008 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling, but the Intervenors continued to press the appeal alone, requesting the appellate court to rehear the case. Last weeks decision denied that request and re-affirmed the earlier decision in full. “This ruling affirms a major victory for consumers, ranchers, organic farmers, and most conventional farmers across the country,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “Roundup Ready Alfalfa represents a very real threat to farmers’ livelihoods and the environment; the court rightly dismissed Monsanto’s claims that their bottom line should come before the rights of the public and […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2009) Farmers, consumers and civil society organizations in Australia, Canada and the U.S. released a joint statement confirming their collective commitment to stop commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) wheat. In 2004, global pressure prevented biotechnology company Monsanto from pushing GE wheat onto an unwilling market. The statement, “Definitive Global Rejection of Genetically Engineered Wheat,” was released to counter the May 14 “Wheat Commercialization Statement,” released by industry lobby groups in the three countries. The industry pledged to “work toward the goal of synchronized commercialization of biotech traits in our wheat crops.” The joint statement was released by 15 groups in Australia, Canada and the U.S., including the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, the National Family Farm Coalition in the U.S. and the Network of Concerned Farmers in Australia, and counters the six stated industry arguments in favour of GE wheat. “GE wheat is a potential disaster of huge proportions,” said Terry Bohem, Vice President of the National Farmers Union in Canada. “We refuse to allow Monsanto and industry groups to restart any campaign to commercialize GE wheat.” The group statement centers on the pledge: “In light of our existing experience with genetic engineering, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 15, 2009) Stating that it represents a danger to the environment, Germany’s Federal Minister for Nourishment, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Ilse Aigner, announced an immediate ban on Monsanto’s MON810 genetically engineered (GE) maize yesterday. Claiming the decision is based on science and is an individual case, not a broad banning of all GE crops, Ms. Aigner stated, “Genetic engineering must include a complete guarantee of the security for person, animal, plant and environment.” Environmentalists, scientists and farmers opposed to GE crops have argued that the corn, which confers resistance to pests, could pollute other crops and pose a threat to the environment and human health. The debate over the use of GE crops in Europe has been ongoing for at least a decade. MON810 maize, brand name YieldGard, is the only GE crop currently cultivated in the European Union (EU). Under EU laws, countries are allowed to ban individual GE crops for environmental and health reasons. Currently, Hungary, France, Austria, Greece and Luxembourg ban MON810 maize. In March, EU environment ministers overwhelmingly rejected a European Commission proposal to force Austria and Hungary to lift their bans on the controversial cultivation of varieties of genetically modified (GM) corn. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2009) Earlier this month, European Union environment ministers overwhelmingly rejected a European Commission proposal to force Austria and Hungary to lift their bans on the controversial cultivation of varieties of genetically modified (GM) corn. Over 20 member states voted against the Commission proposal. Hungary can maintain its ban on Monsanto’s GM maize MON810, and Austria on MON810 and Bayer’s T25. “This is a victory for the environment, farmers and consumers, and a major embarrassment for the Commission. For the fourth time, EU governments have rejected a Commission proposal to lift national bans on GM crops. What part of ‘no’ does the Commission not understand?” said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU GMO policy director. Austrian and Hungarian scientific authorities have recently supplied new evidence supporting their national bans showing that MON810 maize – the only GMO currently cultivated in the EU – is likely to have harmful environmental effects. Helen Holder, European GMO campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe said, “The European Commission has once again failed to force countries to lift their national GMO bans. Today’s vote is a clear message that European countries will not be bullied into taking unsound decisions regarding their environment, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2009) Twenty-six leading corn insect scientists at public research institutions submitted a comment to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which charges that patent-holding companies, including Monsanto, Syngenta, and others, interfere with their genetic engineering (GE) research on crops. The statement says, “Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.” The names of the 26 scientists were withheld from the public docket “because virtually all of us require cooperation from industry at some level to conduct our research.” The stewardship agreements, which are intended to ensure that farmers honor the companies’ patent rights, do not allow planting GE crops for research. These have been in place for years, but according to the New York Times, scientists have now spoken out […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 12, 2009) Genetically modified (GM) crops are benefiting biotech food giants instead of the world’s hungry population, which is projected to increase to 1.2 billion by the year 2025 due to the global food crisis, according to a report released yesterday by the Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth International. The report, “Who Benefits From GM Crops: Feeding the Biotech Giants Not the World’s Poor,” explains how biotech firms like Monsanto are exploiting the dramatic rise in world grain prices that are responsible for the global food crisis by sharply increasing the prices of GM seeds and chemicals they sell to farmers, even as hundreds of millions go hungry. The findings of the report support a comprehensive United Nations’ assessment of world agriculture in the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), which in 2008 concluded that GM crops have little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger in the world. IAASTD experts recommended instead low-cost, low-input agroecological farming methods. “U.S. farmers are facing dramatic increases in the price of GM seeds and the chemicals used with them,” said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the US-based Center for Food Safety […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 5, 2009) On November 10, 2008, the Austrian government released a report of long term research showing genetically engineered (GE) corn fed to mice significantly reduced their fertility over three to four breeding cycles within one generation. Similar effects were found in mice fed GE corn and bred over four generations. The study, “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” was sponsored by the Austrian Ministry of Health, Families, and Youth, and led by Dr. Jürgen Zentek, Professor of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Vienna. Three series of experiments were done. The first was a multigeneration feeding trial in which the mice were fed and bred for four successive generations, beginning with the parents that were fed the diets from birth. The second was a multi-cycle breeding trial lasting 20 weeks in which breeding pairs of mice were fed beginning one week prior to co-habitation until the end of experiment, and allowed to go through four breeding cycles in the same generation. The third was a life-term trial involving feeding the mice without breeding from conception (via the pregnant mothers) to their eventual death. The researchers report that it […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 6, 2008) Agricultural biotech seed and chemical giant Monsanto will acquire Aly Participacoes Ltda., a Brazilian company involved in breeding sugar cane, and has already begun work to develop genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready (herbicide resistant) sugarcane. The deal for $290 million comes at the same time grain giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is set to invest $375 million in a joint venture with a Brazilian firm to produce sugarcane-based ethanol. Amidst numerous other concerns with the widespread adoption of GE crops and the proliferation of crops grown for biofuels around the world is the threat of increased pesticide use. Roundup Ready crops, which are genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate https://www.beyondpesticides.org/gateway/pesticide/glyphosate.htm) have been a boon to Monsanto’s profits, but not without environmental costs. Currently grown Roundup Ready crops include soy, corn, canola, cotton, and sugar beets. The crops’ resistance to glyphosate enables the use of the herbicide during the growing season without harming the crop itself. Glyphosate is now the number one herbicide in the United States. This has serious implications for public health and the environment, as glyphosate has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, kidney and […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 7, 2008) After months of grassroots pressure by the Genetic Engineering Policy Project, Center for Food Safety and others, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 541, The Food and Farm Protection Act, on September 27, 2008. Under this law, farmers that are unknowingly contaminated by genetically engineered (GE) crops in California are now protected from liability. Monsanto, which has aggressively litigated to protect its seed patents, must now use a protocol to investigate farmers and sample their crops under legal standards that require notification. “We’re pleased to see that this bill will give farmers new protections from legal implications related to GE crops,” said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director for Center for Food Safety. “While it is a compromise, it’s still an important step in the right direction.” AB 541 protects California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable – the drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land and the subsequent contamination of non-GE crops. Farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, most notably Monsanto. Further, if their contaminated crops cause harm to other farmers, the environment or consumers, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 4, 2008) On September 2, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically-engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa pending a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Court determined that the planting of genetically modified alfalfa can result in potentially irreversible harm to organic and conventional varieties of crops, damage to the environment, and economic harm to farmers. Beyond Pesticides is a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. Although the suit (Geertson Seed Farms, et al. v. Johanns) was brought against U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forage Genetics and Monsanto entered into the suit as Defendant-Intervenors. In her opinion, Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder held that, “Monsanto and Forage Genetics contend that the District Court disregarded their financial losses, but the district court considered those economic losses and simply concluded that the harm to growers and consumers who wanted non-genetically engineered alfalfa outweighed the financial hardships to Monsanto and Forage Genetics and their growers.” “This ruling affirms a major victory for consumers, ranchers, organic farmers, and most conventional farmers across the country,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, lead plaintiff and counsel in the lawsuit. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2008) As the debate over how to solve the global food crisis heats up, experts criticize many in the mainstream media for promoting pesticides and genetically engineered seeds as solutions to global hunger. In a recent critique, Francis Moore Lappe, author of the famous book Diet for a Small Planet and co-founder of Food First and the Small Planet Institute, says the media, in this case NPR, are off the mark in identifying the underlying causes of the food crisis and fail to look at the hopeful stories of farming communities that are succeeding with agro-ecological methods. Ms. Lappe writes, “On every continent one can find empowered rural communities developing GM-free, agro-ecological farming systems. They’re succeeding: the largest overview study, looking at farmers transitioning to sustainable practices in 57 countries, involving almost 13 million small farmers on almost 100 million acres, found after four years that average yields were up 79 percent.” As an example, she points to what may be the “pesticide capital of the world,” Andhra Pradesh, India,where “pests developed insecticide resistance and genetically modified (GM) cotton failed to live up to Monsanto’s promises.” After significant crop losses and farmer suicides there, many communities […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2008) High food prices, climate change and increasing concern over fresh water supplies are helping to fuel interest in new genetically modified (GM) technology in the European Union (EU), which has long been wary of foods derived from tinkering with the genetic make-up of plants. The European Commission has said it believes GM crops can alleviate the current crisis in food supply, although it added in June that expediency should not overrule strict scientific scrutiny of the use of GM technology. A European Commission-sponsored Eurobarometer opinion poll last month showed a slight increase in knowledge and acceptance of the technology. New consumer interests in GM seed varieties, which are likely to be more resistant to drought and able to produce reasonable yields with significantly less water, have increased. In a similar opinion poll conducted in March, the number of EU respondents saying they lacked information on GMs fell to 26 percent, compared with 40 percent in the previous, 2005 survey.  Fifty-eight percent were apprehensive about GM use and just 21 percent in favor, down from 26 percent in favor in a 2006. The European Union has not approved any GM crops for a decade and the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2008) Pesticides manufactured by Bayer (Germany), Syngenta (Switzerland), Monsanto (USA), BASF (Germany) and Dow Chemical (USA) pose the biggest threat to human health and the environment, according to a new Greenpeace Germany report, “The Dirty Portfolios of the Pesticides Industry.” The report provides the first-ever ranking of the world’s leading agrochemical companies based on the hazards and risks of their pesticides on human health and the environment. These five companies together account for 75 percent of the world market and 46 percent of the pesticides they sell worldwide are particularly hazardous substances. Monsanto has the portfolio with the highest proportion, 60 percent, of pesticides that are particularly toxic to humans and the environment. However, Monsanto only ends up in the middle of the overall ranking due to its small share of the market. The overall ranking not only takes into account the hazardous properties of the various pesticides, but also the quantities that are sold worldwide. Pesticides manufactured by Bayer pose the biggest threat to human health and the environment, according to the report. “Our ranking shows how toxic the business of the leading agrochemical companies still is,” said Greenpeace chemicals expert Manfred Krautter. “Politicians must […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2008) While the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) High Level Conference on Food Security in Rome convenes June 3-5, 2008, some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are trying to shed light on the fact that as hundreds of millions of people throughout the world are hungry, agrochemical companies that make pesticides and genetically engineered seeds are making record profits. Although UN chief Ban Ki-moon has declared the summit a success with “a clear sense of resolve, shared responsibility and political commitment among member states to making the right policy choices and investing in agriculture in the years to come,” many NGOs fear that the policies will only continue in the model of the green revolution, which ushered in the widespread use of pesticides and fertilizers in farming. This model favors large agrochemical companies that manufacture pesticides and genetically engineered seeds and perpetuates the environmental and social devastation that goes hand in hand with industrial agriculture. The Food Summit in Rome follows the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development (IAASTD) (also sponsored by the FAO) conference held in April of this year, which stressed the importance of agroecological and organic approaches to farming in order […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2008) The sowing of gene-altered corn, called MON810, in France this spring will not be allowed until further scientific evidence on its safety is reviewed. This ruling came after growers argued that they faced serious economic harm if the ban on genetically modified crops was not immediately released before the start of the spring planting season. The French Conseil d’État last week upheld the ban instituted February 7 of this year, after concerns were raised by French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, on the heath and environmental benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops. In the ruling, presiding Judge Jean-Marie Delarue pointed out that the safety of the product needs further study. The ban would therefore be upheld until a ruling could be made on the scientific underpinning. Hearings are expected to be held in the coming months. The French Ministry of Agriculture initially imposed the ban on GM products, stating that it should remain in place until European authorities completed a review of the product. Review is required every ten years. Efforts to overturn the ban were led by the General Association of Maize Growers in France and several biotechnology companies, including Monsanto, which engineered MON810, and Pioneer, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 15, 2008) Two studies have just been released, one by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a promoter of genetically-engineering crops,  and the other by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Friends of the Earth, each with differing conclusions on the impact of genetically engineered (GE) crops on the health of our food systems. The debate is one that has existed for years, particularly as GE seeds have spread worldwide, now accounting for 280 million acres of cropland in 23 countries. Reports have historically provided significant documentation of herbicide-resistant weeds developing as a result of heavy reliance on the chemicals crops are bred to tolerate. Insect resistance has also been recently discovered. Legislators have recognized the need to protect farmers from GE contamination and resulting lawsuits from seed developer Monsanto. Concerns over a litany of health and environmental risks from GE crops continue. The timing of these two studies highlights the disparity between how the GE industry represents its product and how public interest groups evaluate the effects and risks they see to farmers and consumers alike. The ISAAA study, entitled Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007, celebrates the first twelve […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 24, 2008) The first state bill on genetically engineered (GE) crops passed through its first committee in February, 2007, and the latest revision is scheduled for a hearing tomorrow, January 24. While AB 541 has been pared down considerably from its first and most progressive incarnation, it includes two very important measures to protect farmers whose crops are contaminated by nearby GE fields. The first provision states, “A farmer is not liable for the breach of a seed contract or for patent infringement if a product, in which the seed labeler, or patent holder or licensee, has rights, is possessed by the farmer or found on real property owned or occupied by the farmer and the presence of the product is de minimis or not intended by the farmer.” A frequent criticism of Monsanto and the company’s overwhelming market share of seed is its tendency to sue farmers who did not plant GE seed, but whose fields were contaminated by a neighbor’s GE variety. In a 2005 report by the Center for Food Safety, Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell said, “These lawsuits and settlements are nothing less than corporate extortion of American Farmers.” (See Daily News from January […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 23, 2008) Agribusiness giants Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto have successfully persuaded the state of Minnesota to reconsider their water-quality limit for the chemical, acetochlor. Scientists representing the industry presented their own studies to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and explained that the state’s original draft limit for acetochlor was too strict. Despite three years of research conducted by the state, scientists from Dow and Monsanto presented officials at the MCPA with six published studies- one of them in Chinese- which they claimed were overlooked by the state when determining the standard for acetochlor in waterways. As a result, the MPCA has decided to allow 3.6 parts per billion of acetochlor in rivers, more than twice the concentration of the 1.7 parts per billion previously proposed. As a result, three of five streams classified as ”˜impaired’ by acetochlor, including a popular trout stream in southeastern Minnesota, can no longer be considered polluted. Some environmental advocacy groups question whether the MPCA gave favorable treatment to the pesticide makers, claiming that other research that suggest that the chemical can cause ecological damage have not been seriously considered. “It looks like there’s a double standard, that industry can come in […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 3, 2008) The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has struck an arrangement with agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. that gives farmers in four states a break on federal crop insurance premiums if they plant a majority of Monsanto-brand seed corn this spring. Farmers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota need to plant 75-80% of their crops with Monsanto’s (and only Monsanto’s) GM seeds to receive the “premium rate discount”. The arrangement has raised some eyebrows, particularly among organic farm groups that argue the government agency should not be promoting corn that promotes herbicide use; the Monsanto brands are resistant to Roundup (main ingredient, glyphosate) and contain chemicals that kill insects and other plants. Monsanto’s deal is legal, according to USDA officials, who point out that such arrangements were encouraged in a 2000 crop insurance passed by Congress. The idea is to give farmers a break on their insurance premiums if they use corn seeds that are higher yield and show resistance to insects and other threats. USDA officials said they are aware of the appearance of favoritism toward one of the nation’s largest agricultural companies. “We knew it would look that way,” said Shirley Pugh, a spokeswoman for […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2007) Seven years ago, the introduction of genetically modified (GM) sugar beets, along with other crops like potatoes and rice, was shelved at fears that consumers would not support their use. Sugar beets, which produce about half of the United States sugar (almost all of which is used domestically), are used in foods like candy, cereal, and baking products. The failure of the GM beet’s initial introduction was based on unwillingness from companies like Hershey and Kellogg to provoke consumer protests. Now, the marketplace seems to have changed enough that such big sugar-buying companies are less hesitant to buy Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” beet (which are tolerant of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate). According to Kellogg spokeswoman Kris Charles, her company “would not have any issues” buying them because “most consumers are not concerned about biotech.” “Basically, we have not run into resistance,” said American Crystal Sugar president David Berg of the switch. “We really think that consumer attitudes have come to accept food from biotechnology.” Most other companies, including Hershey and Mars, are refusing to comment on the subject, which has kept these developments quiet until recently. Despite the corporate perception of public opinion on GM crops, […]