(Beyond Pesticides, July 19, 2010) The Washington D.C. based Center for Food Safety (CFS) has unveiled an application for mobile phones to help shoppers quickly and easily identify foods made with ingredients from genetically modified (GM) organisms. Many consumers are leery of GM foods, yet unfortunately producers are not required to label products that contain GM ingredients, leaving consumers guessing about what they are eating. To aid consumers where regulatory oversight has failed, CFS created its new True Food Shoppers Guide Mobile Application available for free through iTunes and Android Market. GM foods were first introduced into the U.S. food supply in 1994, promising to put an end to world hunger. Using genetic engineering, scientists were expected to create drought and salt tolerant crops, with higher yields and nutrient content. These crops never materialized, however, and industry giants such as Monsanto have collected huge revenues selling insecticide producing and herbicide resistant crops to American farmers. These crops have not only failed in their promise to boost crop yields, but studies have shown that they increase the use of pesticides, and create herbicide resistant weeds. While disillusionment with GM crops grows, the US government continues to bow to industry lobbyists, refusing […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 15, 2010) Swiss chemical manufacturing giant Syngenta, one of the makers of the commonly used and heavily scrutinized pesticides atrazine, are speaking out against anti-pesticide activists and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) review of atrazine. Despite mounting peer-reviewed scientific literature and research, Syngenta refuses to acknowledge the dangers of atrazine and, according to Legal Newsline, claims that the review is “redundant,” and merely “an unprecedented war on agriculture by anti-pesticide activists.” The company, which made over $11 billion in sales in 2009 even accuses the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which has spearheaded a campaign to persuade EPA to initiate reviews, of being “slick” and “well-funded.” Other critics of the agency’s decision include the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a group that has in the past received funding from Monsanto and Union Carbide (according to the group Center for Science in the Public Interest, ACSH stopped disclosing corporate donors in the early 1990’s). Dr. Gilbert Ross, medical director of ACSH told Legal Newswire that they believe EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to be “cooperating with, if not spearheading, a broad-based activist agenda.” An article by The Huffington Post Investigative Fund published last week, however, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 14, 2010) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that Monsanto Company Inc. has agreed to pay a $2.5 million penalty to resolve misbranding violations related to the sale and distribution of cotton seed products containing genetically engineered (GE) pesticides. This is the largest civil administrative penalty settlement ever received under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). “This agreement shows that when a company violates the law by distributing misbranded pesticides, EPA will take action,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “The regulated community should understand that we take these violations seriously, and the public will accept nothing less than compliance.” “People who manufacture and distribute pesticide products must follow the federal registration requirements,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “These requirements are critical to preventing the development and spread of insect resistance.” Monsanto Bollgard and Bollgard II cotton seed products contain genetically engineered pesticides known as plant incorporated protectants (PIPs), which are registered as a pesticidal product under FIFRA. As a condition of the registrations, EPA included planting restrictions on Bollgard and Bollgard II, which contain the PIP Bacillus […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2010) Based on a flawed assessment, the authors of recent study out of the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada have been attacking organic agriculture as less environmentally friendly than chemical-intensive conventional methods. In their press release, the authors say, “Consumers shouldn’t assume that because a product is organic it’s also environmentally friendly.” However after analyzing the study, Beyond Pesticides determined that this message is flawed and misleads consumers because the study does not actually evaluate an organic system. Instead the study substitutes natural pesticides that are approved in organic systems for synthetic pesticides in a conventional soybean field. The authors warned policy makers against promoting organic agriculture, based on the false assumptions of their study. “If the goal of their study was to educate consumers as their message to the media suggests, then the authors of this study have shown a surprising lack of knowledge about organic agriculture,” said Beyond Pesticides project director John Kepner. “Organic agriculture is based on pest prevention and soil health. Organic farmers use techniques such as crop rotation and the creation of habitat for beneficial species, with organic-approved natural pesticides only as a last resort. Substituting these chemicals into a […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 23, 2010) The Supreme Court ruling in Monsanto v Geersten Seed Farms on June 21, 2010 appears to favor the St. Louis-based biotech giant, but may offer some protection from genetically engineered (GE) crops. In a 7 to 1 decision, the high court overturned a lower court injunction on the planting of GE alfalfa, yet planting the crop still remains illegal until USDA completes assessing its environmental review. Interestingly, Justice Steven G. Breyer recused himself because his brother District Judge Charles Breyer had issued the original ruling, while Justice Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself despite having worked as a Monsanto attorney for two years. In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and several other farming and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, filed suit on behalf of Geerston Seed Farms. The suit led to a U.S. District Court ruling that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) by approving the sale of GE alfalfa without requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS). Monstanto was forced to stop selling the seed until a comprehensive EIS is prepared and assessed. A draft EIS was prepared in 2009. This was the first ever moratorium […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2010) The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in a case that prohibited Monsanto from selling genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa seed. A decision on the case of Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, the first time the Supreme Court has heard a case involving a genetically engineered crop, is expected in late June. The Center for Food Safety filed suit in 2006 on behalf of a coalition of organic farmers and environmental groups including Beyond Pesticides, arguing that the USDA violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) when it approved deregulation of GE alfalfa without an environmental impact statement (EIS). Roundup Ready Alfalfa is genetically engineered to resist the herbicide Glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup. Alfalfa is a bee pollinated crop used primarily for forage. The potential for cross pollination between GE and non-GE varieties of alfalfa is much higher than in other crops such as corn, because of the way Alfalfa is pollinated. In 2007, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ordered a moratorium on GE alfalfa until the USDA completed an EIS. The USDA released a draft EIS in December of 2009 again calling for deregulation of the crop. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 14, 2010) A new report shows that the large-scale cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) corn is causing the spread of a new pest in the US Corn Belt. The report, “The spread of the western bean cutworm causes massive damage in the US” published by Testbiotech for Greenpeace Germany finds that GE corn plants in the U.S. that have been genetically modified to express the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin classified as Cry1Ab are being infested by the larvae of the western bean cutworm (Striacosta albicosta). According to Testbiotech, a research based non-profit organization operating out of Germany, this new pest has been caused by the large-scale cultivation of genetically engineered plants expressing Cry1Ab such as MON810 (sold as YieldGard by company of Monsanto). The infestation has been observed since 2000, and the western bean cutworm is emerging as a new plant pest. Historically, this species of cutworm has been confined to very limited regions and did not cause any major problems in maize crops. However, for the past several years the pest has been spreading into more and more regions within the US Corn Belt causing substantial economic damage. Maize plants affected by the western bean cutworm […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 2010) Federal district Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California denied a preliminary injunction on genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets and sugar beet seeds. However, Judge White did indicate that a permanent ban may be forthcoming saying that the parties should not “assume that the Court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction is indicative of its views on a permanent injunction” pending an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the U.S Department of Agriculture’s (USDS) Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). In the mean time, he urged the Intervenor-Defendants to “take all efforts going forward to use conventional (non GE) seed.” Judge White will begin hearing motions on a permanent ban of GE sugar beets in May with the next court date scheduled for July. “Based on today’s ruling, we are encouraged that Judge White will order permanent injunction relief,” said Paul Achitoff, attorney for Earth Justice in a release by Center for Food Safety (CFS). “We will ask the Court to halt the use of genetically engineered sugar beets and seeds until the federal government does its job to protect consumers and farmers alike.” The Plaintiffs, CFS, Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club, and High […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 5, 2010) The European Commission (EC) has approved the cultivation of the genetically modified (GM) Amflora Potato for feed and industrial (paper and glue) uses. Three varieties of GM corn developed by Monsanto were also approved by the EC for sale but not cultivation within the European Union (EU). Opponents fear that this decision could open the door to approval for other genetically modified (GM) crops such as Glyphosate resistant (Roundup Ready) varieties. Critics say that while not approved for human consumption, Amflora and other GM crops could still end up in the food supply, and the technology used to create these crops could lead to increased antibiotic resistance. The opposition to GM crops or “Frankenstein Foods,” as many call it, is very strong in several EU countries. Martin Haeusling, an EU Parliament and Green Party member, says that 70% of the EU population opposes genetically modified foods. This is the first time the EU has approved a GM crop since 1998 when Monsanto’s MON 810, a variety of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn was approved for human consumption. When Austria and Hungary banned the crop, the EC unsuccessfully tried to force the two nations to allow Bt […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 2, 2010) A lawsuit filed March 1, 2010 in federal court against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service seeks to compel the Service to uproot genetically engineered (GE) crops from its Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware. As many as 80 other national wildlife refuges across the country now growing GE crops are vulnerable to similar suits. Filed in the U.S. District Court for Delaware by the Widener Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic on behalf of Delaware Audubon Society, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Center for Food Safety, the federal suit charges that the Fish & Wildlife Service had illegally entered into Cooperative Farming Agreements with private parties, allowing hundreds of acres to be plowed over without the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In March 2009, the same groups won a similar lawsuit against GE plantings on Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge. Ironically, Prime Hook has now been administratively incorporated into Bombay Hook, meaning that the same refuge management that is overseeing execution of the Prime Hook verdict is violating its tenets on Bombay Hook. In August 2009, several environmental groups led by the Center for Food […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 12, 2010) The Washington Post is reporting that after much protest from environmentalists, farmers, doctors, and state officials, India has imposed a moratorium on a genetically engineered (GE) variety of brinjal or eggplant. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) brinjal has been engineered to produce its own insecticide. It would have been India’s first GE food crop, and the world’s first GE eggplant approved for wide scale production. Bt cotton is currently India’s only genetically modified crop. Bt corn is grown in 17 countries including the United States, and China recently approved a strain of Bt rice for human consumption. A government committee approved the commercial release of Bt brinjal in October. The committee’s decision was met with protests across the country. The states of Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Karnataka had already stated their intention to ban the crop if the federal government approves it. When Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh hosted seven public meetings around the country to debate Bt Brijal, some meetings devolved into heated shouting matches. Many protesters dressed as bright purple or green eggplants. Mr. Ramesh has since called for more independent research to ensure the crop is safe for human consumption, saying the moratorium will continue […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 1, 2010) Public health, environmental and organic agriculture advocates are urging the public to submit comments to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on its draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa by the February 16, 2010 deadline, demanding that USDA protect organic food from GE contamination and not approve Monsanto’s GE alfalfa. USDA claims in the EIS that there is no evidence that consumers care about GE contamination of organic alfalfa. But, it is not just alfalfa that is at risk. Since alfalfa is fed to dairy cows and other livestock, organic dairy and meat products could also be affected. Last week, Beyond Pesticides reported that in the ongoing battle to stop the use of GE alfalfa seeds, Monsanto v. Geerston Seed Farms will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The seed is modified to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the brand name Roundup. In 2006 the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and several other farming and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, filed suit on behalf of Geerston Seed Farms. The suit led to a U.S. District Court ruling that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) violated […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 29, 2010) A genetically engineered (GE) variety of brinjal, or eggplant, was approved by India’s Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) last October. As the central government decides on approval of the crop’s commercial release, farmers, environmentalists, doctors, and even several state governments have mobilized in protest. India has already approved the commercial cultivation of GE cotton, but this would be the first genetically engineered food crop. Produced by Monsanto, the Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) brinjal is engineered to kill insects. Bt is a soil bacteria that produces compounds toxic to certain larval insects. In Bt crops, part of the bacteria’s genome has been incorporated into the plant’s genome, causing the plant to produce these same compounds. An estimated 80% of India’s cotton crop is currently grown from Bt seeds. Concerns about the approval of Bt brinjal has lead to heated protests. While India’s central government is holding a series of public meetings this month to discuss the issue, the first of these meetings ended in a shouting match between protestors and Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh. The Chief Ministers of several states have also written to Mr. Ramesh urging him not to rush […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 25, 2010) For the first time, a case involving a genetically engineered crop will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, Monsanto v. Geerston Seed Farms, is the most recent development in an ongoing battle to stop the use of genetically modified alfalfa seed. The seed is modified to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the brand name Roundup. In 2006 the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and several other farming and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, filed suit on behalf of Geerston Seed Farms. The suit led to a U.S. District Court ruling that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) by approving the sale of GE alfalfa without requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS). Monstanto was forced to stop selling the seed until a comprehensive EIS is prepared. This was the first ever moratorium in the U.S. on a genetically engineered, or modified, crop. The USDA completed its first draft of the EIS in December 2009. Brushing aside the concerns of organic alfalfa growers, consumers, and environmentalists, USDA argues for non-regulated status of GE alfalfa. According to this document, the economic gains of […]

(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, December 17, 2009) Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that preliminarily concludes that there is no significant impact on the human environment due to granting nonregulated status to Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa. Much to the dismay of environmentalists, the draft EIS outlines plans to allow unlimited commercial planting of genetically-engineered (GE) alfalfa that is resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, despite increasing evidence that GE alfalfa will threaten the rights of farmers and consumers, as well as damage the environment and the integrity of organic food. The agency prepared this draft EIS to comply with a February 2007 judgment and order by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in which Judge Charles R. Breyer found that USDA violated federal environmental law by failing to conduct an EIS on GE alfalfa seeds before deregulating them in 2005. The lawsuit, originally brought on by The Center for Food Safety (CFS) and several other environmental and farming groups, including Beyond Pesticides and Sierra Club, led to a 2007 court order that the deregulation may have significant environmental impacts […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 18, 2009) A report released yesterday and authored by Charles Benbrook, PhD, chief scientist at The Organic Center (TOC), finds that the rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically modified corn, soybeans and cotton has promoted increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds, and more chemical residues in foods. The report, “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years,” explores the impact of the adoption of genetically modified (GM) corn, soybean, and cotton on pesticide use in the United States, drawing principally on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The most striking finding, is that GM crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. over the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops (1996-2008). The report identifies, and discusses in detail, the primary cause of the increase–the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds. The steep rise in the pounds of herbicides applied with respect to most GM crop acres is not news to farmers. Weed control is now widely acknowledged as a serious management problem within GM cropping systems. The rise in herbicide use comes as […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 9, 2009) One out of every four farmers who plants genetically engineered (GE) corn is failing to comply with at least one important insect-resistance management requirement, which increases the likelihood that pesticide-resistant bugs will threaten the future of organic crops, conventional crops and other biotech crops. That finding comes in a new report, Complacency on the Farm, by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). According to CSPI, in 2008, 57 percent of the corn acreage in the United States was planted with corn spliced with genes from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium, or Bt. Those crops produce natural toxins that are harmless to humans but will kill corn rootworms and corn borers, which otherwise reduce crop yields. Farmers who plant such crops are supposed to plant a refuge of conventional corn in, adjacent to, or near the GE crop. That refuge is designed to reduce the risk that pests that survive the toxin will breed with each other and produce resistant offspring. Resistant offspring would not only reduce yields of the Bt crops, but could also threaten organic or conventional farmers who use natural Bt-based pesticides on non-GE crops. Depending on the location of the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 4, 2009) Environmental and farm groups are asking the Senate to reject the Obama Administration pick for chief agriculture trade representative because of positions that he has taken in support of genetically modified organisms as a spokesman for the agrichemical industry, his attack of the European Union (EU) moratorium on genetically engineered crops as lacking “sound science,” and his organization’s outright opposition to organic agriculture and First Lady Michelle Obama’s efforts to advance organic gardening. Groups are calling for the rejection of the nomination of Islam Siddiqui, PhD, vice president for science and regulatory affairs at CropLife America, to be the chief agricultural negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade Representative. Dr. Siddiqui’s confirmation is scheduled for today in the Senate Finance Committee. The National Organic Coalition (NOC) sent a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance intending “to bring to the committee’s attention serious concerns and questions” surrounding the nomination of Dr. Siddiqui, including positions that promoted hazardous and unnecessary chemical dependency, as well as his advocacy of genetically modified organisms. NOC states in its letter that, “We have no reason to believe that, at this time, [Dr. Siddiqui’s] history of positions makes […]

(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, September 23, 2009) On September 21, 2009, Beyond Pesticides, joined by 32 other groups and individuals, submitted comments to the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) showing new and emerging science which illustrates that glyphosate and its formulated products pose unreasonable risk to human and environmental health, and as such should not be considered eligible for continued registration. EPA opened up the Glyphosate Registration Review for comments on July 22, 2009 with a window for submitting comments extending to September 21, 2009. Beyond Pesticides does not believe that glyphosate should be eligible for registration on the grounds that: human exposures to glyphosate pose unacceptable risks; Roundup formulations are toxic, yet go unevaluated; Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 10x (additional margin of safety) factor must be reinstated; Polyethoxylated Tallowamine (POEA) surfactant; glyphosate and Roundup threaten water quality and aquatic life; glyphosate and Roundup-ready crops lead to increasing resistance; and human incidents are too high. As demonstrated in the comments submitted by Beyond Pesticides, herbicide resistance is on the rise. When genetically engineered food products, such as Roundup-ready crops, were commercially developed in the 1990’s, they were sold to the public as a technology that, among other things, would reduce pesticide […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2009) Researchers have found that one of the so-called “inert” ingredients in the popular herbicide product Roundup can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells. Over 4,000 inert ingredients are approved for use in the U.S. and can be mixed with pesticide “active” ingredients; however these chemicals are not disclosed to consumers or users on pesticide product labels due to EPA’s intepretation (many would say incorrect interpretation) of federal pesticide law. Many inerts are classified as highly toxic, while others have not been adequately studied. About 100 million pounds of Roundup are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year and until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate the active ingredient in Roundup, rather than the mixture of “inert” ingredients found in the herbicidal product. In this new study, “Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells,” researchers found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells””even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns, and which correspond to low levels of residues in food or feed. One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was […]

(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 […]