GMO2 bak

<div>new node 9/15 see GMO</div><div>agribizgmo, prop37</div><div>2 tags fail roy GMOnsanto</div><div>bak 5/20 Rowell,</div>=<p palatino="Palatino" linotype="Linotype" palladio="Palladio" urw="URW" l="L" book="Book" antiqua="Antiqua" baskerville="Baskerville" bookman="Bookman" old="Old" bitstream="Bitstream" charter="Charter" nimbus="Nimbus" roman="Roman" no9="No9" garamond="Garamond" apple="Apple" itc="ITC" narrow="Narrow" new="New" century="Century" schoolbook="Schoolbook" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="">Polluters Pass “Go”<p palatino="Palatino" linotype="Linotype" palladio="Palladio" urw="URW" l="L" book="Book" antiqua="Antiqua" baskerville="Baskerville" bookman="Bookman" old="Old" bitstream="Bitstream" charter="Charter" nimbus="Nimbus" roman="Roman" no9="No9" garamond="Garamond" apple="Apple" itc="ITC" narrow="Narrow" new="New" century="Century" schoolbook="Schoolbook" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" style="">In 1995 the new governor of Texas responded to the needs of the “polluting industries” that had contributed more than $4 million (about 20 percent of his total) to his election campaign the year before. Thus, as soon as he was in office, George W. Bush signed into law the Texas Environmental Health and Safety Audit Privilege Act, also known as the “polluter immunity law.” This new law, which has since been emulated in twenty-five other states and was tried at the federal level during the Bush presidency, allows polluting industries to avoid prosecution for pollution violations if they themselves report their own crimes to themselves in an internal audit. It also gives them the ability to prevent the public from knowing about their violations.<p palatino="Palatino" linotype="Linotype" palladio="Palladio" urw="URW" l="L" book="Book" antiqua="Antiqua" baskerville="Baskerville" bookman="Bookman" old="Old" bitstream="Bitstream" charter="Charter" nimbus="Nimbus" roman="Roman" no9="No9" garamond="Garamond" apple="Apple" itc="ITC" narrow="Narrow" new="New" century="Century" schoolbook="Schoolbook" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" style="">As Arizona’s assistant attorney general, David Ronald, said, “Only the business with something to hide would benefit from a law that turns data gathered from environmental audits into secret information.”<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-influence-there-are-politicians-who-work-on-behalf-of-corporations-and-those-who-work-on-behalf-of-humans/#7" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">7 </a>Some of these laws even provide for a year in jail and a $10,000 fine for any human who reveals to the public or to government agencies any corporate pollution discovered in an audit, thus discouraging investigative reporting or whistle-blowing employees.<p palatino="Palatino" linotype="Linotype" palladio="Palladio" urw="URW" l="L" book="Book" antiqua="Antiqua" baskerville="Baskerville" bookman="Bookman" old="Old" bitstream="Bitstream" charter="Charter" nimbus="Nimbus" roman="Roman" no9="No9" garamond="Garamond" apple="Apple" itc="ITC" narrow="Narrow" new="New" century="Century" schoolbook="Schoolbook" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="">Like with health-care policy, these laws that increase the power and the profitability of the nation’s largest corporations at the expense of smaller companies who play by the rules—and to the detriment of average citizens—from the beginning are influenced by enormous amounts of “corporate free speech” in the form of cash for politicians and political parties.<p palatino="Palatino" linotype="Linotype" palladio="Palladio" urw="URW" l="L" book="Book" antiqua="Antiqua" baskerville="Baskerville" bookman="Bookman" old="Old" bitstream="Bitstream" charter="Charter" nimbus="Nimbus" roman="Roman" no9="No9" garamond="Garamond" apple="Apple" itc="ITC" narrow="Narrow" new="New" century="Century" schoolbook="Schoolbook" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="">In a Democracy…<p palatino="Palatino" linotype="Linotype" palladio="Palladio" urw="URW" l="L" book="Book" antiqua="Antiqua" baskerville="Baskerville" bookman="Bookman" old="Old" bitstream="Bitstream" charter="Charter" nimbus="Nimbus" roman="Roman" no9="No9" garamond="Garamond" apple="Apple" itc="ITC" narrow="Narrow" new="New" century="Century" schoolbook="Schoolbook" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="">The point for a democracy is, “What is the will of the people?” That will may change over time, but it is undemocratic when it is shaped by the single voice that shouts the loudest because there are profits to be made. Democracy is more important than any single debate, and this is a classic example of how democratic republican processes have been twisted because of the concept of corporate personhood.----<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/">https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/</a>
...During the Reagan administration, Robert Monks and Nell Minow worked with the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief. Monks says, “We found that business representatives continually sought more rather than less regulation, particularly when [the new regulations] would limit their liability or protect them from competition.”Monks and Minow became disenchanted with the process. In their 1991 book Power and Accountability, they say, “The ultimate commercial accomplishment is to achieve regulation under law that is purported to be comprehensive and preempting and is administered by an agency that is in fact captive to the industry.”<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">[1]</a> In this way corporations find an actual government shield for their actions. For example:<ul style="box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 2rem; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px;"><li class="rteleft" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 30.66px; margin-bottom: 2.5rem;">Tobacco companies point to the government-mandated warnings on their labels, saying that the labels relieve them of responsibility for tobacco-related deaths because they’re obeying government rules.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 30.66px; margin-bottom: 2.5rem;">Producers of toxic wastes can’t be sued or attacked if they are releasing their toxins within guidelines defined by a government agency.</li><li class="rteleft" style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 30.66px; margin-bottom: 2.5rem;">Telemarketing companies push for laws and regulations that define their practice, thus legalizing it.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 30.66px; margin-bottom: 2.5rem;">Manufacturers of genetically modified products can bring them to market without labeling, so long as the products are made within the guide- lines of the regulations. <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#2" style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">[2]</a></li></ul>The Fox Guarding the Chicken CoopBefore there was a single genetically modified food product on the market, Monsanto, a leading provider of agricultural products to farmers, including Roundup, the world’s best-selling herbicide, and a pioneer in genetically altered crops, sent lobbyists to the White House in late 1986 to meet with Vice President George H. W. Bush.“There were no products at the time,” Leonard Guarraia, one of the Monsanto executives at the meeting, told the New York Times in 2001. “But we bugged him for regulation. We told him that we have to be regulated.”<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#3" style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">[3]</a>And so, the Times reports, “the White House complied,” and Monsanto got the regulations it wanted from the EPA, FDA, and USDA.Those regulations evolved throughout the Reagan and Bush administrations into a regulatory policy, announced by Vice President Dan Quayle on May 26, 1992, when he said, “We will ensure that biotech products will receive the same oversight as other products, instead of being hampered by unnecessary regulation.”Certainly there would be no unnecessary regulation, but the regulations that were now in place were necessary for the industry. Said the New York Times, “The new policy strictly limited the regulatory reach of the FDA.”<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#4" style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">[4]</a>Under the regulations shepherded through government agencies by the White House, the dangers of genetically modified foods would be determined by the manufacturers, not the government, and testing would occur only when the companies wanted it to. And consumers were not to be notified if their food contained genetically modified organisms (as does now a substantial percentage of the American food supply).“Labeling was ruled out as potentially misleading to the consumer, since it might suggest that there was reason for concern,” notes Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald.<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#5" style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">[</a><a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#5" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">5]</a> In the meantime, gene-altered corn accounted for about 32 per- cent of the 1998 U.S. crop, 38 percent for soybeans, and 58 percent for Canadian canola oil.<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#6" style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">[6]</a>In the summer of 2000, the Clinton administration had to select an American representative to the World Trade Organization talks on genetically modified foods. Ignoring the nomination of a scientist from the Consumers Union, the administration instead chose a former lobbyist for one of the largest companies in the business of genetically modified foods.And in one of the most notorious cases, a multinational chemical and agricultural-products company’s attorney quit his job with the company’s law firm; went to work for the FDA, where he wrote a regulation that allowed that company’s product into the food supply; quit the FDA and went to work for the USDA, where he participated in writing regulations eliminating labeling of the product for consumers; and then quit the USDA and went back to work for the law firm representing the multinational.<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#7" style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">[7]</a>Unfortunately, because of “veggie libel laws” passed in numerous states after much lobbying by pesticide manufacturers and others in the agricultural products industry (under which Oprah Winfrey was sued for her hamburger remarks), it would be a crime in at least fourteen states (where, hopefully, this book will be for sale) for me (or any reporter) to give you the details of this episode.Even Ben & Jerry’s must, by law, say something nice about the outcome of this incident on their labels, although you can read the entire story on the wall of their Waterbury, Vermont, manufacturing facility, as Vermont has not yet passed a law making it illegal to question the safety of the American food supply.The GMO (genetically modified organism) regulations followed a pattern set out years before by the chemical industry. As Paul Hawken pointed out in 1994 in The Ecology of Commerce, the industry launched such a huge lobbying effort to fight regulations on toxic chemicals after the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act that by 1990 “the agency has been able to muster regulations for exactly 7 of the 191 toxins that fell under the original legislation.”<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#8" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">[8]</a>A decade later things are still problematic, with profit driving the equation at every turn. The last year for which EPA statistics are available on the release of toxic chemicals into the environment by industry is 1999, and in that year 7.7 billion pounds of toxins were released directly into our air and water, most with unknown short- or long-term effects.<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#9" style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">[9]</a> And as huge as that statistic may sound, it’s actually only the tip of the iceberg:<ul style="box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 2rem; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"><li class="p1" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 30.66px; margin-bottom: 2.5rem;">Lobbyists defined EPA regulations so that now only 650 of the more than 80,000 chemicals being used in industry have to be reported— which means that the 7.7-billion-pound total represents only 1 percent of the possible chemicals in use.</li><li class="p1" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 30.66px; margin-bottom: 2.5rem;">Only America’s largest chemical manufacturers are required to report their figures.</li><li class="p1" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 30.66px; margin-bottom: 2.5rem;">Those figures include only accidents and spills. As the Worldwatch Institute’s Anne Platt McGinn noted in a commentary titled “Detoxifying Terrorism” on November 16, 2001, “Releases during routine use are not included” in that 7.7-billion-pound figure. Platt added that we don’t yet even know how dangerous or carcinogenic are more than “71 percent of the most widely used chemicals in the United States today” because the data simply doesn’t exist or hasn’t been released by the industry.<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#10" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s;">[10]</a></li></ul>The Impact on Small BusinessSmall businesses rarely lobby Congress, the White House, or regulatory agencies for more regulations. But because large businesses have an infrastructure to deal with regulations, the burden of regulations on small businesses some- times wipes them out. Many regulations come along with benefits. Farm subsidies represent a huge transfer of tax money to corporations, but only a very small portion goes to family farmers.In the agriculture industry, four multinational corporations control 82 percent of the beef cattle market; five companies control 55 percent of the hog-packing marketplace. Although large agricultural corporations numerically own only 6 percent of U.S. farms, that 6 percent accounts for almost two- thirds of all farm income.<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#11" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">[11]</a>In a growing trend known as contract farming, farmers are forced (because they can’t compete against large-scale multinational purchasing) to sell their farms to agribiz companies and then work on the land they once owned. The United States lost 300,000 family-owned farms between 1979 and 1998. As agriculture writer Julie Brussell notes, “This agrarian ‘genocide’ mirrors the descent of much of America’s rural country into economic serfdom.”<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#12" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">[</a><a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#12" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">12]</a> The result, as documented by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund’s (CELDF) Thomas Linzey, is that, “Suicides have replaced equipment- related deaths as the number one cause of farmer deaths.”<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/unequal-regulation/#13" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">[13]</a>References:<a name="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">1. Robert A. G. Monks and Nell Minow, Power and Accountability (New York: Harper- Collins, 1991), </a><a href="https://www.ragm.com/archives/books/poweracc/cover.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">https://www.ragm.com/archives/books/poweracc/cover.html</a>.<a name="2" style="box-sizing: border-box; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;" /><a name="2" style="box-sizing: border-box; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">2. Kurt Eichenwald, “Redesigning Nature: Hard Lessons Learned; Biotechnology Food: From the Lab to a Debacle,” New York Times, January 25, 2001, </a><a href="https://www.nytimes%20.com/2001/01/25/business/redesigning-nature-hard-lessons-learned-biotechnology-%20food-lab-debacle.html?pagewanted=1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">https://www.nytimes .com/2001/01/25/business/redesigning-nature-hard-lessons-learned-biotechnology- food-lab-debacle.html?pagewanted=1</a>....<p class="p1" style="Style" palatino="Palatino" linotype="Linotype" palladio="Palladio" urw="URW" l="L" book="Book" antiqua="Antiqua" baskerville="Baskerville" bookman="Bookman" old="Old" bitstream="Bitstream" charter="Charter" nimbus="Nimbus" roman="Roman" no9="No9" garamond="Garamond" apple="Apple" itc="ITC" narrow="Narrow" new="New" century="Century" schoolbook="Schoolbook" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">6. Marian Burros, “Shoppers Unaware of Gene Changes,” New York Times, July 20, 1998, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/20/world/shoppers-unaware-of-gene-changes%20.html?scp=1&sq=Marian%20Burros,%20%E2%80%9CShoppers%20Unaware%20%20of%20Gene%20Changes,%E2%80%9D%20New%20York%20Times,%2020%20%20July%201998&st=cse" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/20/world/shoppers-unaware-of-gene-changes .html?scp=1&sq=Marian%20Burros,%20%E2%80%9CShoppers%20Unaware%20 of%20Gene%20Changes,%E2%80%9D%20New%20York%20Times,%2020%20 July%201998&st=cse</a>.<p class="p1" style="Style" palatino="Palatino" linotype="Linotype" palladio="Palladio" urw="URW" l="L" book="Book" antiqua="Antiqua" baskerville="Baskerville" bookman="Bookman" old="Old" bitstream="Bitstream" charter="Charter" nimbus="Nimbus" roman="Roman" no9="No9" garamond="Garamond" apple="Apple" itc="ITC" narrow="Narrow" new="New" century="Century" schoolbook="Schoolbook" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><a name="7" style="box-sizing: border-box; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">7. </a><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-02.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; backface-visibility: hidden; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgb(156, 22, 44) 0px -2px 0px inset;">https://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-02.htm</a>.<p class="p1" palatino="Palatino" linotype="Linotype" palladio="Palladio" urw="URW" l="L" book="Book" antiqua="Antiqua" baskerville="Baskerville" bookman="Bookman" old="Old" bitstream="Bitstream" charter="Charter" nimbus="Nimbus" roman="Roman" no9="No9" garamond="Garamond" apple="Apple" itc="ITC" narrow="Narrow" new="New" century="Century" schoolbook="Schoolbook" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">
<p class="p1" palatino="Palatino" linotype="Linotype" palladio="Palladio" urw="URW" l="L" book="Book" antiqua="Antiqua" baskerville="Baskerville" bookman="Bookman" old="Old" bitstream="Bitstream" charter="Charter" nimbus="Nimbus" roman="Roman" no9="No9" garamond="Garamond" apple="Apple" itc="ITC" narrow="Narrow" new="New" century="Century" schoolbook="Schoolbook" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Published on Sunday, May 23, 2004 by the Denver Post<div>
</div><p class="p1" style="Style" palatino="Palatino" linotype="Linotype" palladio="Palladio" urw="URW" l="L" book="Book" antiqua="Antiqua" baskerville="Baskerville" bookman="Bookman" old="Old" bitstream="Bitstream" charter="Charter" nimbus="Nimbus" roman="Roman" no9="No9" garamond="Garamond" apple="Apple" itc="ITC" narrow="Narrow" new="New" century="Century" schoolbook="Schoolbook" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20060822161532/https://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-02.htm">https://web.archive.org/web/20060822161532/https://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-02.htm</a><table width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" align="center" dwcopytype="CopyTableCell" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><tbody><tr align="left"><td><div align="left">When Advocates Become Regulators
President Bush has installed more than 100 top officials who were once lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee.
</div></td></tr><tr align="left"><td><div align="left">by Anne C. Mulkern</div></td></tr><tr><td height="10"> </td></tr><tr align="left" valign="top"><td>WASHINGTON -- In a New York City ballroom days before Christmas, a powerful Bush administration lawyer made an unprecedented offer to drug companies, one likely to protect their profits and potentially hurt consumers.Daniel E. Troy, lead counsel for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, extended the government's help in torpedoing certain lawsuits. Among Troy's targets: claims that medications caused devastating and unexpected side effects.Pitch us lawsuits that we might get involved in, Troy told several hundred pharmaceutical attorneys, some of them old friends and acquaintances from his previous role representing major U.S. pharmaceutical firms.The offer by the FDA's top attorney, made Dec. 15 at the Plaza Hotel, took the agency responsible for food and drug safety into new territory."The FDA is now in the business of helping lawsuit defendants, specifically the pharmaceutical companies," said James O'Reilly, University of Cincinnati law professor and author of a book on the history of the FDA. "It's a dramatic change in what the FDA has done in the past."Troy's switch from industry advocate to industry regulator overseeing his former clients is a hallmark of President Bush's administration.Troy is one of more than 100 high-level officials under Bush who helped govern industries they once represented as lobbyists, lawyers or company advocates, a Denver Post analysis shows.In at least 20 cases, those former industry advocates have helped their agencies write, shape or push for policy shifts that benefit their former industries. They knew which changes to make because they had pushed for them as industry advocates.The president's political appointees are making or overseeing profound changes affecting drug laws, food policies, land use, clean-air regulations and other key issues.Government watchdogs call it a disturbing trend, not adequately restrained by existing ethics laws.Among the advocates-turned-regulators are a former meat-industry lobbyist who helps decide how meat is labeled; a former drug-company lobbyist who influences prescription-drug policies; a former energy lobbyist who, while still accepting payments for bringing clients into his old lobbying firm, helps determine how much of the West those former clients can use for oil and gas drilling."When you go to work in lobbying, it is clearly understood and accepted that your job is to advocate for the interests of those who hired you," said Terry L. Cooper, a University of Southern California ethics and government professor. "When you go to work in government, you are supposed to be responsible for upholding and maintaining whatever you can identify as the public interest."The Bush administration says the regulators were chosen for their abilities."The president appoints highly qualified individuals who make their decisions based on the best interests of the American people," said White House spokesman Jim Morrell. "Any individual serving in the administration must abide by strict legal and ethical guidelines, including full disclosure of past lobbying activities."Six of the former industry advocates have faced ethics investigations or resigned amid conflict-of-interest charges. Those and at least 14 others have been lambasted by public-interest groups.Government ethics standards are part of the problem because they don't fully address the kind of issues that now permeate Washington, Cooper and some inside government say. The rules focus mainly on direct financial conflicts. Other, more nuanced conflicts aren't addressed"There are so many ways around, over and under these (ethics) bans ... they almost never work," said Paul Light, who for decades has studied the appointment process for the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington. "There're more screen doors than steel doors."A March 16 report from the Interior Department's inspector general, for example, concluded that department's "byzantine" conflict-of-interest rules were "wholly incapable" of addressing ethical questions involving a former energy lobbyist, J. Steven Griles, as the department's No. 2 official.The report called the department's ethics system "a train wreck waiting to happen."Bringing bias to a federal job isn't new. Presidents of all political persuasions have appointed people who shared their party's values.As president, Bill Clinton peppered the federal bureaucracy with Democratic state officials, lawyers and advocates from various environmental or public-interest groups.Only a handful of registered lobbyists worked for Clinton, however.Bush's embrace of lobbyists marks a key difference because it allows "those who are affected by the regulations to determine what the ground rules should be," said David Cohen, co-director of the Advocacy Institute, which helps teach nonprofits how to lobby in Washington.While previous Republican presidents hired lobbyists, "the Bush administration has made it rise in geometric proportions," Cohen said, meaning Bush is "capturing the instruments of government and using them for the ends" that favor Bush's political supporters."In the Bush administration," said U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., "the foxes are guarding the foxes, and the middle-class hens are getting plucked."Republicans and their lobbying allies reject the idea that industry is embedded in the administration."Foxes? No," Vice President Dick Cheney told The Denver Post. "I think we have a good track record."The clout of industry is balanced by the power of labor unions, trial lawyers and public-interest groups, said Jerry Jasinowski, chairman of the National Association of Manufacturers."The notion that somehow business gets everything and we've gotten a free ride is absurd," he said.Still, the lobbyists-turned-policymakers control or influence health care, food safety, land use, the environment and other issues touched by government.HEALTH CAREAnn-Marie LynchThe drug-industry lobbyist who fought price controls joined the Health and Human Services Department and has helped drug companies avoid the limits.Top aides in the Department of Health and Human Services provide analysis and advice to the president on key consumer issues, including prescription-drug policies. In doing so, they consider the needs of pharmaceutical companies seeking revenue for future research, and consumers struggling to afford increasingly costly medications.In June 2001 Bush installed Ann- Marie Lynch, a lobbyist for the drug- company trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, to help set those policies.As a lobbyist, Lynch fought congressional attempts to cap prices for drugs. Price controls, she argued, would hamper medical innovation.Thirteen months after Lynch became deputy assistant secretary in the office of policy, her division issued a report that praised brand- name drugs. It warned that "government-controlled restrictions on the coverage of new drugs could put the future of medical innovation at risk and may retard advances in treatment."Consumer advocates say that's nonsense. Other countries innovate despite price controls, said Gail Shearer, director of health policy analysis for Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports."They haven't taken as seriously their job of making medicines affordable to all Americans," Shearer said. "When you talk about the need for (drug) innovation, you have to put it in the context of, will people get the wonder drugs?"Critics say the report influenced congressional debate over a Medicare drug policy that, among other things, banned government from using Medicare's buying power to cut drug prices. The legislation will mean an extra $139 billion in profit over eight years to drug companies, Boston University researchers said.Republicans in Congress used arguments that came "directly out of Ann-Marie Lynch's mouth" and from the trade group she previously worked for, said Rep. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, lead Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee's health subcommittee.Lynch declined to talk to a reporter. HHS spokesman Bill Pierce said the report was not intended to sway Congress. Provisions banning Medicare from negotiating drug prices date to 2000, he said.Lynch also blocked the release of about a dozen completed research reports that challenge drug-company claims, three former employees said. Pierce said Lynch decides research topics and which reports are released.One 2001 report, for example, criticizes Medicare plus Choice (now known as Medicare Advantage). Its findings suggested that running the Medicare prescription-drug benefit through private health companies - the method the administration ultimately chose - would be more expensive and would not serve rural areas well."Very few of (the private companies) manage to bring in the benefit cost effectively," said Mark Merlis, the private health policy consultant who wrote the report.Thomas A. ScullyThe former hospital lobbyist presided over an agency that helped a chain he once represented win a favorable settlement in a Medicare fraud case.Thomas A. Scully represented the nation's for-profit hospitals as a lobbyist before being hired by the Bush administration in June 2001 to head the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.Eight months after Scully arrived at the Medicare and Medicaid agency, it moved to settle final claims involving HCA Inc., a hospital chain that was the biggest member of Scully's former employer, the Federation of American Hospitals. HCA Inc. faced allegations it fraudulently overbilled the government for Medicare cases.Under the terms agreed to in June 2002 by Scully's agency, HCA would have settled for $250 million. Medicare fraud cases typically are ironed out with Justice Department participation, but Scully agreed to those terms on his own, said John R. Phillips, an attorney who represented whistle-blowers in the case."The $250 million was a total sellout by Scully, who totally negotiated it behind Justice's back," Phillips said.It also was handled in a way that protected the company from a full review of its cost reports and the triple- damage civil fines that can be imposed in fraud cases, he said.Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Justice in October 2002 if that deal was "too lenient."Justice delayed the settlement until June 2003.HCA, the nation's biggest for-profit hospital company, eventually paid that $250 million, plus $631 million in civil penalties and damages and $17.5 million to states.Scully's ethics agreement did not require him to officially avoid cases involving HCA. But Scully said he steered clear."I recused myself from everything involving HCA-specific issues or policy and was not involved in any way, shape or form," Scully said. "Every time anything came up (regarding) HCA, I left it to my deputies."But Grassley in a June 25, 2002, letter to a Justice Department lawyer said comments by Scully "have given me great concern that there is an active, ongoing effort underway to change or modify enforcement (on Medicare fraud) policy that in my view could significantly undermine the (law)."Scully has since left the administration for consulting jobs with a lobbying firm and an investment company that represent Medicare providers.Daniel E. TroyThe lawyer who represented major drug companies still fights for causes that benefit them as chief counsel at the Food and Drug Administration.Daniel E. Troy was well-known at the FDA before he arrived in summer 2001 to work as chief counsel, the top legal position in the department.As a lawyer in private practice, Troy repeatedly sued the FDA, arguing that it had only limited ability to regulate drug companies. He filed those suits through the Washington Legal Foundation, a group funded by businesses, including drug companies. Donors include charitable foundations run by Pfizer Inc., Procter & Gamble Co. and Eli Lilly & Co.Troy also represented Pfizer through his firm, Wiley, Rein & Fielding. Troy said in an e-mail to a reporter that his Pfizer work was mainly communications and insurance law, and averaged only 80 hours a year.At the FDA, Troy still is fighting for causes that benefit drug companies.It's unclear whether any of pharmaceutical firms responded to his December request for lawsuits the FDA might get involved in.By the time Troy made that offer, he had already intervened in three drug-company cases as FDA chief counsel. One involved Pfizer.In court briefs, the FDA argued that it determines which warnings a drug company must give consumers. Lawsuits filed in state courts arguing that drug-company warnings are inadequate therefore were invalid, the FDA says. One of the cases Troy challenged involves thousands of consumers who say they were harmed by painful withdrawal from an antidepressant.Lawsuits accusing drug companies of telling consumers too little about side effects constitute the largest category of cases against drug companies, law professor O'Reilly said.If Troy's legal position prevails, O'Reilly said, it would be catastrophic for consumers hurt by drugs. He said it would bar cases like the one filed against the makers of fen-phen, the combination of diet medications tied to heart problems. The makers of those drugs are settling with consumers for $14 billion. That case predates Troy's policy.Troy, who declined to be interviewed, said in a written statement that the FDA is intervening in the lawsuits to protect "the safety, effectiveness and availability of important medical products."He said that would be "adversely affected if judges and juries acting under state law had the power to substitute their judgment for the expert determinations made by FDA scientists."Clinton's Justice Department, he added, took the same legal position, arguing that federal law pre-empts state law.But prior to Troy, professor O'Reilly and one FDA official said, the government got involved only when a judge asked. Troy, in contrast, is seeking cases in which to intervene.And the FDA now is staking a new legal claim, experts say: that its authority to determine drug labeling always trumps any claims made in state court.The FDA is "taking sides in private litigation," said Thomas McGarity, a University of Texas Law School professor and president of the Center for Progressive Regulation, which supports government regulation on health and safety issues.The FDA asks drug-company attorneys to alert the agency to cases because otherwise "our rules might be undermined by contrary state findings" the agency is unaware of, said Peter Pitts, an FDA spokesman.He added: "For people to infer that (FDA) decisions are made with anything but the public health as our focus is untrue, unfair and very ill-considered."FDA officials also say they want to discourage frivolous lawsuits, which drive up costs.A former FDA chief counsel in the Nixon administration, Peter Barton Hutt, said he supported the FDA's legal position but added, "I probably wouldn't be out there encouraging" lawsuits.Troy oversees other FDA changes that provoked accusations that he is siding with drug companies.In October 2001, the Health and Human Services Department gave Troy's office final approval over warnings telling companies they could be in violation of FDA rules. Those had previously been sent out by the FDA's drug-marketing division and district offices.After that change, the number of warnings of questionable claims by pharmaceutical companies quickly dropped from an average of seven a month to two.FDA spokesman Pitts said fewer letters were sent because the process was centralized."If you torture statistics long enough," Pitts said, "they confess to anything."Others see this as dangerous to the public."This ... may be a welcome development for the drug industry, but it poses serious dangers to public health," Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform, said in an Oct. 1, 2002, letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson.Waxman said the bad policy decision was "exacerbated by the appointment of Daniel Troy."The investigative arm of Congress, the General Accounting Office, in October 2002 also found that, under the new system, warning notices "have taken so long that misleading advertisements may have completed their broadcast life cycle before FDA issued the letters."Waxman described the delays as "a development that benefits the powerful pharmaceutical industry at the expense of consumers."FOOD SAFETYCharles LambertAs a USDA official, the former lobbyist for the meat industry who opposed labeling told a hearing that mad cow disease was not a threat.Mad cow disease had yet to surface in the United States last June when a U.S. Department of Agriculture official - a meat-industry lobbyist only eight months earlier - bet his job on the promise that the ailment couldn't sneak into the country through imports.Congress had just passed a law requiring meat labels to state which country a cow lived in before slaughter. Food safety groups say those labels could, among other things, help consumers avoid buying beef from countries with mad cow disease.The USDA opposed such labeling. The person making the agency's case, Deputy Undersecretary Charles Lambert, knew the arguments against such labels. He'd made them as a lobbyist for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.Lambert spent 15 years at the Cattlemen's Association working in Denver before coming to Washington, D.C., where he worked as lobbyist and chief economist. He left in December 2002 to join the USDA as undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs.When asked about mad cow and the labels, Lambert said mad cow disease wasn't a threat."Is there a possibility that it could get through?" Rep. Joe Baca, a California Democrat, asked Lambert at a hearing last June.Lambert answered, "No, sir.""None at all?" Baca asked."No," Lambert replied."You would bet your life on it - your job on it, right?"Lambert answered, "Yes, sir."The disease was discovered in the U.S. six months later - apparently brought here by a cow from Canada.Lambert now says, "I overstated my case."More than a dozen other high-ranking USDA officials appointed under Bush also have ties to the meat industry."Whether it's intentional or not, USDA gives the impression of being a wholly owned subsidiary of America's cattlemen," said Carol Tucker Foreman, director of the Consumer Federation of America's Food Policy Institute. She served as a USDA assistant secretary in the Carter White House. "Their interests rather than the public interests predominate in USDA policy."When he came to the USDA, Lambert signed an agreement stating that in his first year he would "not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which (Cattlemen's) is a party or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate."During that period he met at least 12 times with current or former members of Cattlemen's and its affiliates, an office calendar obtained by The Denver Post shows.Lambert said that at any meeting where policy was discussed, he acted only as a facilitator and that another USDA person was present. The calendar shows meetings where other USDA people were present, although it is not always clear what was discussed.The rest of those meetings were at social settings, he said."You're not required to sever all personal and past relationships ... when you come to federal employment," Lambert said in an interview.ENVIRONMENTJeffrey HolmsteadThe EPA official, a lawyer, formerly worked for a firm that represents utility companies, which are among the biggest air polluters.When the Environmental Protection Agency issued proposed changes to air pollution rules Jan. 30, the wording troubled Martha Keating, a scientist with environmental advocacy group Clear the Air."It struck me that I had seen this before," Keating said.At least 12 paragraphs were identical to or closely resembled a Sept. 4, 2003, proposal given to the Bush administration by Latham & Watkins, a law firm that represents utility companies.The EPA official overseeing the proposed changes is Jeffrey Holmstead, who until he joined the EPA in October 2001 had worked as a lawyer at Latham & Watkins. His clients included a chemical company and a trade group for utility companies. Power plants are among the biggest air polluters.Holmstead oversees the EPA division that governs air pollution.Environmental groups say the rewrite poses a health threat because it slows the reduction of mercury emissions by as much as 11 years. Those emissions can end up in water where they contaminate fish. Forty-three states have issued advisories about fish consumption because of mercury pollution, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group said.One effect of the proposal would be that 168 of 236 Western-based plants, including those in Colorado, would not be required to reduce those emissions at all, Keating said.Lobbyists commonly suggest wording for legislation. But even EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt objects to how this language was lifted."To take something from a source without noting it doesn't seem to be the normal course of business, and it shouldn't have been done," EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said, speaking for Leavitt.Holmstead declined to comment.Six Democratic senators are asking for an investigation. Ten attorneys general and 45 senators - including three Republicans - have asked Leavitt to void the proposed rule because of undue industry influence.The inspector general hasn't decided whether to investigate. Bergman said the final pollution rule is still under development.LAND USEJ. Steven GrilesThe tenure of the veteran energy lobbyist at the Interior Department was labeled an "ethical quagmire" by the agency's inspector general.At the U.S. Department of the Interior, which oversees some 507 million acres of national parks, refuges and rangeland, top officials weigh the competing merits of resource conservation and development.Bush named J. Steven Griles, a veteran energy industry lobbyist, as the department's second-highest official in June 2001.Griles earned $585,000 a year as a lobbyist, representing an array of oil, gas and other energy interests. As Interior's deputy secretary, he continues to receive $284,000 a year for four years to pay him for the value he had created for the firm by bringing in clients.Upon entering the government, Griles had pledged to remove himself from deliberations that affected his former clients.This year, the department's inspector general called Griles' tenure an "ethical quagmire.""Mr. Griles' lax understanding of his ethics agreement and attendant recusals, combined with the lax dispensation of ethics advice given to him, resulted in lax constraint over matters in which the deputy secretary involved himself," the inspector general concluded.That report or a subsequent review by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics found other issues:A former business partner of Griles' hosted a party for Griles and top Interior officials for land and mining.Also, a former Griles client, Advanced Power Technologies Inc., won some $2 million in no-bid contracts from his department after two people Griles supervised pressed APTI's case.And Griles urged the EPA not to press concerns over a plan to open 8 million acres in Wyoming and Montana to gas drilling by companies including six of his former clients. The project is proceeding while a task force studies the matter.The investigations of Griles found no illegalities. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton announced that her right-hand man had been "cleared."Review of ethics guidelinesNeither the Bush administration nor Congress has called for a systematic review of government's ethics guidelines.They should, says Stuart Gilman, president of the Ethics Resource Center, a nonprofit group in Washington that works with companies and government groups."The question is, are we dealing with the problems we're currently confronting in government?" Gilman said.Complaints about ethical breaches within government in some cases can be politically motivated, said Gilman, who also worked in the Office of Government Ethics under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Clinton.At the same time, Gilman said, governmental leaders have a responsibility to eliminate both real and perceived conflicts of interest."For government to function, government must have the confidence of people," Gilman said. "If people don't believe the government is acting fairly, it encourages everyone to cheat."Denver Post staff writers John Aloysius Farrell and Mike Soraghan and researchers Tamania Davis, Barbara Hudson and Regina Avila contributed to this report.</td></tr></tbody></table>==fight over GMO IP?!<div style="">an 822</div><div style="">A fledgling international effort to protect the world's oceans from further damage is "on the brink of failure," and the governments of wealthy countries are primarily to blame, Greenpeace International <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/55351/un-ocean-treaty-talks-set-to-fail-because-of-high-ambition-coalition/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">warned</a> Thursday.Diplomats gathered at the United Nations headquarters in New York City are nearing the end of the fifth and final round of <a href="https://www.un.org/bbnj/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">negotiations</a> on a much-needed pact to protect biodiversity in the "high seas"—a global commons comprising the two-thirds of the ocean that lie outside the jurisdiction of any single country and where legally binding regulations are virtually nonexistent.Conservationists have long hoped that the ongoing summit—<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/08/15/marine-life-defenders-say-un-talks-last-chance-global-ocean-treaty" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">described</a> by some as the "last chance" to forge a robust global ocean treaty—would lead to the establishment of "Marine Protected Areas" and rules mandating environmental assessments prior to deep-sea mining and other industrial activities.But a handful of mostly rich countries—including the United States, Canada, and members of the so-called <a href="https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/ocean/international-ocean-governance/protecting-ocean-time-action_en" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">High Ambition Coalition on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction</a>—have derailed progress made on the text by prioritizing "hypothetical future profits" that could be derived from extracting <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.667274/full" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">marine genetic resources</a> over protecting aquatic species, according to Greenpeace."The oceans sustain all life on Earth, but the greed of a few countries means this round of talks for a U.N. ocean treaty are now set to fail," Laura Meller of Greenpeace's Protect the Oceans campaign said Thursday in a <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/55351/un-ocean-treaty-talks-set-to-fail-because-of-high-ambition-coalition/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">statement</a>. "The High Ambition Coalition has utterly failed. They should be the No Ambition Coalition."Members of the coalition have "obsessed over their hypothetical future profits, undermining all the other progress made at these talks," said Meller. "Unless ministers urgently pick up the phone today to their counterparts and hammer out a deal, this treaty process will fail."The health of the world's oceans, which cover roughly 70% of the Earth and are indispensible to life on the planet, has been rapidly <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/08/22/90-marine-species-face-extinction-under-emissions-status-quo-study" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">deteriorating</a> as a result of unmitigated <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/01/11/oceans-hotter-2021-any-time-recorded-history" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">greenhouse gas emissions</a>, surging <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/01/18/global-plastic-pollution-deadly-ticking-clock-report" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">plastic pollution</a>, and <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/06/28/un-chief-warns-ocean-emergency-leaders-confront-biodiversity-loss-pollution" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">overexploitation</a>.The high ambition coalition pledged earlier this year to finalize a treaty in 2022 that would protect 30% of the world's oceans by 2030, but the proposed text is "lowering its ambition by the minute," said Greenpeace."Less than two months ago I was in Lisbon, at the U.N. Ocean Conference, listening to these leaders promise they would deliver a strong global ocean treaty this year," said Meller. "Now we are in New York and the leaders are nowhere to be found. They've broken their promises.""We are sad and angry," Meller continued. "Billions of people rely on healthy oceans, and world leaders have failed all of them.""It now looks like protecting 30% of the world's oceans [by 2030] will be impossible," she added. "Scientists say this is the absolute minimum necessary to protect the oceans, and failure at these talks will jeopardize the livelihoods and food security of billions. We're beyond disappointed."Greenpeace also accused rich nations of taking "an unfair and neocolonial approach by refusing to commit any finance for the benefit of all countries."The refusal of the U.S., Canada, and others to provide funding "will stop a treaty from being agreed here," the group added. "With talks set to fail, countries must now take urgent action, show flexibility, and find compromise to deliver a strong treaty text" by Friday.</div><div style="">=</div>=no lnxyale cc looks legitCan genetically engineered seeds prevent a climate-driven food crisis?GMO crops may better withstand climate risks like drought, but time is running low.<a href="https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/11/can-genetically-engineered-seeds-prevent-a-climate-driven-food-crisis/">https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/11/can-genetically-engineered-seeds-prevent-a-climate-driven-food-crisis/</a>
by SAMANTHA HARRINGTONNOVEMBER 19, 2021When John Boelts sows acres of cotton seed on his farm in Yuma, Arizona, he does so knowing that the fields will be free of an invasive pest called pink bollworm. For nearly a century, the small pink striped caterpillars terrorized cotton fields in the U.S.The adult bollworm, a gray moth, laid its eggs on cotton bolls, and the pink-striped caterpillars that emerged from those eggs began munching on the bolls, fibers, and seeds. Even with pesticides, Arizona farmers lost up to a third of their crop every year.“When I was a much younger man with hardly any gray hair, we were planting cotton varieties, and we would spray them nine to 13 times in a season just for pink bollworm,” Boelts said. “I haven’t sprayed for pink bollworm in over a decade.” That’s because Boelts now grows cotton genetically engineered to repel pests. The technology has helped not just his farm but the entire U.S. to eradicate the pink bollworm. It has also reduced pesticide use. Now, large seed corporations are touting genetic engineering not just for fighting pests but as a way of addressing climate-change-related stressors on agriculture. But researchers are skeptical that the technology can match the pace and scale of climate change.“It’s this silver-bullet solution that is very appealing to investors and even farmers,” said Philip Howard, a professor in the College of Agriculture at Michigan State University. “But when you actually look at what’s going on, it’s a much more brittle, and less resilient system, even if these traits are able to do what the company claims.”[Maize (corn) is becoming increasingly suitable in uphill areas previously too cold for the crop in the Mount Kenya region. (Photo credit: CIAT / CC BY-SA 2.0)How climate change affects agricultureAlthough most crops currently being cultivated have not been genetically engineered in a lab, all domesticated crops have been altered from their wild ancestors. During the 10,000-year history of agriculture, farmers gradually modified their crops by saving and planting the seeds of plants that produced the juiciest fruit or the fattest kernels. The first evidence of a modified crop, an early kind of wheat that kept its seed heads rather than scattering them before harvest, was found in present-day China and dated to about 7800 BCE. Such crops fed humanity for thousands of years during a period when Earth’s climate remained relatively stable.But the addition of heat-trapping pollutant gases to the atmosphere is causing more erratic weather and disrupting the predictable turn of the seasons. Scorching heat, droughts, and extreme storms are stressing plants and animals people depend on for food. And farmers are finding that crop varieties carefully developed over centuries are, in some cases, no longer suitable to the local climate. In fact, reduced crop yields of crops such as wheat and corn are being observed in arid regions and near the equator, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  In Kenya, farmers are facing droughts and floods that make even subsistence farming difficult. Daniel Wanjama runs Seed Savers Network Kenya, an organization that helps Kenyan farmers save, document, and share seeds. Seed Savers Network connects farmers with seed and crops that can help them adapt.“We have seen rainfall reduction. We have seen increasing rainfall in some areas,” Wanjama said. “For us, the answer is not in developing a single variety that is able to survive the impact of climate change, but having natural varieties and having different species growing together.”Farther north in temperate zones, some farmers are seeing increased yields as growing seasons lengthen. But this phenomenon doesn’t mean places like the U.S. are in the clear. The U.S. Midwest is expected to see some of the largest yield declines in corn and soybeans in the world, with the corn belt potentially shifting north into Canada. Howard, the Michigan State professor, says major seed companies have already abandoned development of new corn varieties suitable for the southeastern U.S.Climate change is also likely to result in increased crop damage from pests and diseases moving into new areas.William Tracy, an agronomy professor who directs a sweet corn breeding program at the University of Wisconsin, has already seen pests change. “I’ve been working at the West Madison farm for thirty-five-ish years now,” he said. “And the pests we have now are different than they were then. They come at different times. They can be more severe.”Pros and cons of GMOsThe process of genetically engineering crops requires extracting desired DNA traits, such as insect resistance, from a plant and inserting them into another crop. In the U.S., they include genetically engineered versions of corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets, canola, papaya, alfalfa, and summer squash. The most commonly used varieties make crops resistant to common pests or herbicides.The U.S. Department of Agriculture held a Pink Bollworm Eradication Ceremony at the Westhaven Cotton Company gin in Lemoore, CA, on November 8, 2018. GMO seeds helped make the eradication possible.]Companies have also rolled out weather-specific adaptations, such as corn varieties engineered to better withstand drought conditions. Researchers are experimenting with engineering crops to better manage higher temperatures. “Continuously improving seeds to grow more resilient and high-yielding crops remains one of agriculture’s strongest tools,” Susan Luke, deputy director of external communications for Bayer’s crop science division, wrote in an email.But there are limitations to how much resilience genetically engineered seed can provide, and researchers have concerns about the cost of seed and the role of large companies in the seed marketplace. 
Seed companies consolidate market powerThe Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that genetically engineered organisms are intellectual property. That judgment meant they could be patented, making seeds a potential financial bonanza for companies controlling the market. Agricultural chemical companies began purchasing small seed and genetics companies. In 2021, the vast majority of genetically engineered seed rests in the hands of just four multinational corporations.“By buying up dozens of Midwestern corn and soybean companies, Monsanto alone was able to really reduce what was available for farmers,” Howard said. “There are some places where it’s becoming really difficult to find non-genetically engineered seeds for farmers who want that.”Because the seeds are patented, it’s illegal for farmers to save and replant genetically engineered seed. As a result, infrastructure such as cleaning equipment and seed storage space once used to save and exchange seeds is disappearing in the U.S.
Cost of GMO seedsKoen Deconinck, an economist who has studied seed markets at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said that outside of the Americas, genetically engineered crops are relatively uncommon because of negative public sentiment. Many people worry that engineered crops are unsafe to consume, but studies have found no evidence of toxicity. The European Union nonetheless has banned the use of most genetically engineered seed. But where it is sold, genetically engineered seed is expensive. In 2018, non-GMO corn cost, on average, $80 less than genetically engineered corn per bag. As climate change increases risks of crop losses for many farmers, expensive seed could price out small farmers in the U.S. and abroad.Biotechnology companies argue that it is costly to meet strict regulatory requirements, and that those expenses are reflected in the price of the seed. But state attorneys general, industry groups, and lawmakers raised concerns that a 2018 merger of seed and chemical companies Monsanto and Bayer would allow them to set higher prices. The effect of that consolidation is still being debated. Some agricultural economists have found no connection between market power increases and prices, but other experts disagree.William Tracy, an agronomy professor at the University of Wisconsin, has been involved in some of those regulatory conversations. He says the primary reason for the seeds’ high cost comes from biotechnology companies’ ability to set high prices because of their market power.“I also think – pretty much know – that the companies were involved in writing the regulations,” Tracy said. “And I believe that they were written to be oppressive to actually give the companies that had lots of lawyers an advantage.”
Can powerful companies slow innovation?Researchers worry also that consolidation has slowed innovation – particularly in development of regional varieties – because the companies are focused on producing seed they can sell to the majority of their market.That outcome could be a major problem as the climate continues to change: “When there’s an extreme weather event or a drought,” Howard said, “there’s now less diversity to draw on to try and breed seeds that are more locally adapted.” Biotechnology companies counter that there has been no decline in the genetic diversity of varieties on the market, and that seed diversity actually declined most significantly prior to the introduction of genetically engineered seeds.“Bayer agrees that the diversity of ecosystems, species, and crop varieties is inherently valuable and needs to be protected,” Luke wrote. “We are committed to conserving and restoring biodiversity within and beyond agricultural fields through our technologies and services.”It takes a long time to create a new GMO cropThe biggest problem of all might be that it takes a long time to bring a newly modified crop to market. As farmers work to adapt to climate change, time is of the essence.Luke said new genetically engineered crop varieties can take more than a decade to develop. The first insect-resistant cotton, like the one Boelts uses, became commercially available in 1996 after being in research and trials for about 10 years. After engineering seed, researchers conduct trials in experimental settings and then in farm settings. The seed must also go through the regulatory process, which aims to ensure that it is safe.Rising temperatures alone will necessitate a shift in the agricultural landscape by mid-century. Maximum temperatures in the southern Midwest are projected to regularly exceed ideal conditions for most crops – 80 F for corn and 86 F for soybeans – and get “closer to the reproductive failure temperatures,” according to the National Climate Assessment, a sweeping report on the effects of climate change on the United States.So seed development may need to speed up if farmers are to continue growing the same crops.
Increasing food security as the climate changesMost researchers agree that increasing the diversity in varieties and in the kinds of crops that are grown is an essential part of reducing crop loss risk. Publicly funded research could help and could bring enormous benefit to society, some say. One study found that for every one dollar of taxpayer money invested into agricultural research and development, $10 in benefits were returned to society.Such a move would require a turnaround: Public universities have traditionally been a major source of plant breeding research, but federal funding has fallen since the mid-20th century.But beyond investment in developing new seeds themselves, Deconinck, the OECD economist, argues there should be more public investment in the development of technologies through which new seeds are created.“Maybe the government doesn’t necessarily need to focus on developing the next cotton variety,” Deconinck said. “But they could think about funding research in universities for things like CRISPR and gene editing and making sure that a lot of those inventions end up in the public domain.”New technologies may also allow for new seed varieties to be created more quickly and at a lower cost. For example, seed modified using CRISPR – a technology that allows scientists to “edit” existing DNA without introducing genetic material from another organism like in genetic engineering – doesn’t face the same regulations as genetically engineered seed. As a result, CRISPR-created seed may move into the field more quickly and affordably.Outside of research institutions, collectives of farmers are also working to create seed-sharing arrangements. Seed Savers Network Kenya organizes farmers to contribute their own varieties to a communal seed bank and share them.In Kenya, Wanjama said farmers “don’t see seed as a trading commodity, they see seeds as an item that needs to be shared.”Howard said the Farmers Business Network in the U.S. helps identify seeds that are similar to those offered by the larger companies but at a lower price.Reform of the private sector could also help. Deconinck noted that removing unnecessary barriers for smaller seed companies, while maintaining safety regulations, would promote more diversity in the marketplace of seed offerings. As farmers face climate change, they will need a full toolbox of strategies and flexibility to adapt. Genetically engineered seeds are one tool, but they are unlikely to save agriculture on their own. “We’re seeing the derechos and we’re seeing these extreme flooding events now all over the country,” Tracy said. “So this is the future. And I don’t know how you breed for that in an annual crop.”<div>
</div>=see usrtk on entine and pam ronald uc davis monsanto funding
<div>FOOD EVOLUTION GMO FILM SERVES UP CHEMICAL INDUSTRY AGENDA</div><div>
</div><div>Posted on February 4, 2018 by Stacy Malkan</div><div>This post has been updated with reviews of Food Evolution: </div><div>
</div><div>Letter from 45 academics: “Food Evolution deserves to be called out for what it is: a piece of propaganda“</div><div>Letter from University of Minnesota research scientists: “The Food Evolution movie is agribusiness propaganda“</div><div>NYU Professor Marion Nestle: Food Evolution is a “slick piece of GMO industry propaganda” … “I have asked repeatedly to have my short interview clip removed from this film. The director refuses. He believes his film is fair and balanced. I do not.” Follow up post by Marion Nestle: “A win for GMO trolls: this blog no longer accepts comments“</div><div>Michael Pollan: “My experience and take much the same” and “This movie is funded by industry“</div><div>UC Berkeley Associate Professor Alastair Iles: “No evolution in thinking in Food Evolution“</div><div>UC Berkeley Professor Miguel Altieri: “Food Evolution is propaganda for public support of GMOs“</div><div>Doug Durian-Sherman, PhD: “Food Evolution Supports GMOs, but Not Science” Part 1 and Part 2</div><div>Vice article: “This Documentary Wants to Teach People About GMOs, But Experts Call It Propaganda“</div><div>Alternet by Stacy Malkan: “Neil deGrasse Tyson Owes Fans a More Honest Conversation About GMOs“</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>By Stacy Malkan, 6/19/2017 </div><div>
</div><div>Some industry messaging efforts are so heavy-handed they end up highlighting their own PR tactics more than the message they are trying to convey. That’s the problem with Food Evolution, a new documentary by Academy Award-nominated director Scott Hamilton Kennedy and narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson.</div><div>
</div><div>The film, opening in theaters June 23, claims to offer an objective look at the debate over genetically engineered foods, but with its skewed presentation of science and data, it comes off looking more like a textbook case of corporate propaganda for the agrichemical industry and its GMO crops.</div><div>
</div><div>That the film’s intended purpose was to serve as an industry-messaging vehicle is no secret. Food Evolution was planned in 2014 and funded by the Institute for Food Technologists, a trade group, to culminate a multi-year messaging effort.</div><div>
</div><div>IFT is partly funded by big food corporations, and the group’s president at the time was Janet Collins, a former DuPont and Monsanto executive who now works for CropLife America, the pesticide trade association. IFT’s President-Elect Cindy Stewart works for DuPont.</div><div>
</div><div>IFT chose Kennedy to direct the film, but he and producer Trace Sheehan say they had complete control over the film they describe as a fully independent investigation into the topic of GMOs including all points of view.</div><div>
</div><div>The film’s credibility suffers from their choice to embrace only the science and scientists who side with the chemical industry players who profit from GMOs and the chemicals used on them, while ignoring science and data that doesn’t fit that agenda.</div><div>
</div><div>The Monsanto Science Treatment</div><div>
</div><div>The clearest example of the scientific dishonesty in Food Evolution is the way the film deals with glyphosate. The weed killer chemical is at the heart of the GMO story, since 80-90% of GMO crops are genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate.</div><div>
</div><div>Food Evolution reports that the increase in glyphosate use due to GMOs is not a problem, because glyphosate is safe. Two sources establish this claim in the film: a farmer says glyphosate has “very, very low toxicity; lower than coffee, lower than salt,” and Monsanto’s Robb Fraley – in response to a woman in an audience who asks him about science linking glyphosate to birth defects and cancer – tells her that’s all bad science, “it’s pseudoscience.”</div><div>
</div><div>All science raising concerns about glyphosate is “pseudoscience,” says Monsanto.</div><div>
</div><div>There is no mention of the carcinogenicity concerns that are engulfing Monsanto in an international science scandal, or the many farmers who are suing Monsanto alleging they got cancer from the company’s glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide.</div><div>
</div><div>There is no mention of the 2015 report by the World Health Organization’s cancer agency that classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, or California’s decision to add glyphosate to the Prop 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, or the peer-reviewed studies that have linked various adverse health outcomes to glyphosate and Roundup.</div><div>
</div><div>Instead of an objective look at the evidence, Food Evolution gives viewers the full Monsanto science treatment: any science that raises concerns about the possible health risks of agrichemical products should be ignored, while studies that put those products in a favorable light is the only science worth discussing.</div><div>
</div><div>Double Standards in Science and Transparency</div><div>
</div><div>Equal treatment of interview subjects with different points of view would have helped the credibility of Food Evolution. Instead, the film paints the GMO critics it features as dishonest or out to make a buck off the organic industry, while leaving out key details about its pro-industry sources.</div><div>
</div><div>In one scene, the film’s main character, UC Davis professor Alison van Eenennaam, frets that appearing onstage with a Monsanto executive at a debate could sully her independent reputation. Viewers never learn that she used to work for Monsanto, or that she holds several GE patents which suggest a financial interest in the topic at hand.</div><div>
</div><div>Pro-industry scientist Pamela Ronald, another key science source, gets the hero treatment with no mention that two of her studies have been retracted. Yet viewers are hammered with news that a study by French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini – which found kidney problems and tumors in rats fed GMO corn – was “retracted, retracted, retracted!”</div><div>
</div><div>The film leaves out the fact that the study was subsequently republished, and was retracted in the first place after a former Monsanto employee took an editorial position with the journal where it was originally published.</div><div>
</div><div>The “Africa Needs GMOs” Narrative</div><div>
</div><div>In another neatly spun narrative, Food Evolution takes viewers on an emotional journey to the developing world, and along another favorite industry messaging track: rather than focus on how genetic engineering is used in our food system now – primarily to convey herbicide tolerance – we should focus on how it might possibly be used in the future.</div><div>
</div><div>With plenty of airtime and dramatic tension, the film examines the problem of banana wilt, a disease killing staple crops in Africa, and leads viewers to believe that genetic engineering will save the crop, the farmers and the community.</div><div>
</div><div>Maybe. But the film neglects to mention that the savior GE technology is not yet available and might not even work. According to a paper in Plant Biotechnology Journal, the resistance shown in the lab is robust but may not be durable in open fields.</div><div>
</div><div>The film is “fundamentally dishonest.”</div><div>
</div><div>Meanwhile, a low-tech solution is working well and looks like it could use some investment. According to a 2012 paper in the Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, farmer field schools, which help growers acquire hands-on knowledge of techniques to prevent banana wilt, led to lower infection rates and high crop recovery in Uganda. Results from farmer field schools “have been remarkable,” according to the UN.</div><div>
</div><div>The solution doesn’t warrant a mention in Food Evolution.</div><div>
</div><div>“It’s fundamentally dishonest of the film to tout a GE solution that may not even work, as the scientists themselves acknowledge,” said Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, “while failing to point out another way to control the problem that works very well, but doesn’t involve selling a product to make money.”</div><div>
</div><div>Did Monsanto have anything to do with Food Evolution?</div><div>
</div><div>Monsanto and allies were discussing plans for a documentary in late 2013, according to emails obtained by US Right to Know. The emails do not contain evidence linking those discussions to Food Evolution, but they do establish Monsanto’s desire for a film that sounds surpassingly similar to the one Kennedy created.</div><div>
</div><div>Monsanto’s Eric Sachs wrote in Dec. 2013 to a group of PR advisors, “there is clearly a lot of interest to pursue a documentary film. Importantly, the consensus was that Monsanto’s participation was welcome, particularly in the planning phase.”</div><div>
</div><div>He recommended a January 2014 planning call. Jon Entine of the Genetic Literacy Project stepped up to take the lead, and mentioned he had “gotten a personal pledge of $100,000 from a private business person if we can get” (the rest of the line is cut off). Entine also has a connection to the Institute for Food Technologists; he spoke about “anti-food activism” at IFT’s 2012 annual meeting.</div><div>
</div><div>Another person mentioned in the Monsanto emails, Karl Haro von Mogel – who had discussed with Sachs “the downsides of a film funded by the ‘Big 6’” and suggested “what would matter more than their money is their participation” – was interviewed in Food Evolution, and was also involved in filming one scene, which suggests some behind the scenes coordination with the filmmakers.</div><div>
</div><div>In reaction to the emails, Kennedy wrote on Twitter: “@foodevomovie has had ZERO $ or INPUT from #Monsanto. We are fully transparent & happy 2 have fact-based dialogue.”</div><div>
</div><div>He said in an interview, “that email exchange had absolutely nothing to do with our project whatsoever … we hadn’t even committed to making the film with IFT at that date in 2013.”</div><div>
</div><div>The people in the email exchange were not involved in filming or advising, he said, and Karl Haro von Mogel “was a subject in the film and had no involvement or influence on any creative/editorial decisions on the film at any point in the production. Also it may be useful to point out that the email conversation you reference occurred long before we ever even knew Karl or any of these people.”</div><div>
</div><div>Sneak Peek Behind the Scenes</div><div>
</div><div>Another email exchange obtained by US Right to Know offers a peek behind the scenes at the narrative development in Food Evolution. The exchange depicts Kennedy’s search for examples to feature for “us/developing world need GMO.”</div><div>
</div><div>“Any other ‘us/developing world need GMO’ you can give me names of aside from oranges? Shintakus lettuce?” Kennedy asked. Producer Trace Sheehan responded with a list of GMO products including drought-tolerant rice, allergy-free peanuts, carcinogen-free potatoes … “and then button with Golden Rice.”</div><div>
</div><div>When Kennedy pushed for “the top GMO crops currently in use, and what countries,” Mark Lynas of the Cornell Alliance for Science wrote, “Really Bt brinjal in Bangladesh is the only one that is truly GMO in and is in widespread operation.”</div><div>
</div><div>The film’s frame-driven reporting ignores that detail about the lack of operational GMO solutions, and doesn’t mention that the closer example, vitamin-A enhanced Golden Rice, still isn’t available despite huge investments and years of trials, because it doesn’t work as well in the field as existing rice strains.</div><div>
</div><div>What is propaganda?</div><div>
</div><div>In a scene that is supposed to convey scientific credibility, Food Evolution flashes the logo of the American Council on Science and Health at the very moment Neil deGrasse Tyson says there is a global consensus on the safety of GMOs. It’s a fitting slip. ASCH is a corporate front group closely aligned with Monsanto.</div><div>
</div><div>The ACSH logo scene also appears in the background in this 2-minute clip from a recent Climate One debate, as Kennedy pushed back against the suggestion that his film is propaganda.</div><div>
</div><div>“How do we determine what is propaganda?” Kennedy asked. “I say one of the ways we do it is (to ask), are results asked for, or results promised? I was not asked for results and I did not promise results. If you have a problem with the film, the problem lies with me.”</div><div>
</div><div>This review originally appeared in Huffington Post and has been reprinted in Alternet. </div><div>
</div><div>See also: Stacy Malkan’s follow-up article, Neil deGrasse Tyson Owes Fans a More Honest Conversation About GMOs than Food Evolution. “Interviews with several other GMO critics who appear in the film, or were asked to be in it, corroborate the picture of a strange process involving sneaky filming, selective editing, misrepresentation and lack of disclosure about the film’s funding.”</div><div>
</div><div> Food For Thought, GMOs   Alison Van Eenennaam, American Council on Science and Health, Cindy Stewart, Cornell Alliance for Science, CropLife America, Dupont, Eric Sachs, Food Evolution, Genetic Literacy Project, GMO, Institute for Food Technologists, Janet Collins, Jon Entine, Karl Haro von Mogel, Mark Lynas, Monsanto, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Pamela Ronald, Robb Fraley, Scott Hamilton Kennedy, Trace Sheehan, UC Davis</div><div>...</div>=820<table class="yiv4712151226email-marginTop24 yiv4712151226email-xs-marginTop12 yiv4712151226email-marginBottom36 yiv4712151226email-xs-marginBottom32 yiv4712151226email-borderSpacing0 yiv4712151226email-fillWidth" style="border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); min-width: 100%; width: 648px; margin-top: 24px; margin-bottom: 36px;"><tbody><tr class="yiv4712151226email-verticalAlignTop" style="vertical-align: top;"><td class="yiv4712151226email-width100 yiv4712151226email-xs-block yiv4712151226email-xs-fillWidth yiv4712151226email-xs-paddingBottom12" width="100" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: normal; width: 100px;"><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><div class="yiv4712151226email-backgroundSizeCover yiv4712151226email-backgroundNoRepeat yiv4712151226email-width100 yiv4712151226email-height100 yiv4712151226email-xs-fillWidth yiv4712151226email-borderBlueGrey yiv4712151226email-backgroundGrayLightest" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; cursor: pointer; background-position: 49% 43%; width: 100px; max-height: 100px; min-height: 100px; border: 1px solid rgb(242, 242, 242); background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-size: cover; background-repeat: no-repeat;"><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /></div></td><td class="yiv4712151226email-paddingLeft20 yiv4712151226email-xs-paddingLeft0 yiv4712151226email-xs-block yiv4712151226email-xs-fillWidth" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 20px; word-break: normal;"><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><div class="yiv4712151226email-bold yiv4712151226email-digestPostTitle" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.22; font-weight: 700;"><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin/the-first-gene-edited-squid-in-history-is-a-biological-breakthrough-c81cb0449e5a?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader------1-59------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8-16-----&sectionName=recommended" style="text-decoration-line: none;">The First Gene-Edited Squid in History Is a Biological Breakthrough</a></div><div class="yiv4712151226email-digestPostSubtitle" style="margin: 4px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.33;">The modified squid could be useful for brain research</div><div class="yiv4712151226email-marginTop8 yiv4712151226email-xs-marginTop10 yiv4712151226email-fontSize15 yiv4712151226email-textDarkerGray" style="margin: 8px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a rel="nofollow" class="yiv4712151226email-link yiv4712151226email-textDarkerGray" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/@emilymullin?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader-------------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Emily Mullin</a> in <a rel="nofollow" class="yiv4712151226email-link yiv4712151226email-textDarkerGray" target="blank" href="https://medium.com/one-zero?source=email-614f991bbfe0-1597483242645-digest.reader-------------------------cbceb639_95cf_4db9_b553_96c75b4ea1d8" style="text-decoration-line: none;">OneZero</a></div></td></tr></tbody></table>cited by harvard news blog (also punked chassy etc)looks legit:<div class="title-authors" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 id="artTitle" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 9px; padding: 0px; line-height: 27px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops</h1><ul class="author-list clearfix" data-js-tooltip="tooltip_container" id="author-list" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0.625rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.125rem; list-style-position: outside; overflow: visible;"><li data-js-tooltip="tooltip_trigger" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px -3px; padding: 0px; float: left; list-style-type: none; position: relative;"><a data-author-id="0" class="author-name" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; display: inline-block; padding: 2px 4px;">Wilhelm Klümper,</a></li><li data-js-tooltip="tooltip_trigger" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px -3px; padding: 0px; float: left; list-style-type: none; position: relative;"><a data-author-id="1" class="author-name" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; display: inline-block; padding: 2px 4px;">Matin Qaim</a></li><li data-js-tooltip="tooltip_trigger" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px -3px; padding: 0px; float: left; list-style-type: none; position: relative;"><a data-author-id="1" class="author-name" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; display: inline-block; padding: 2px 4px;">https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629</a></li><li data-js-tooltip="tooltip_trigger" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px -3px; padding: 0px; float: left; list-style-type: none; position: relative;">
</li><li data-js-tooltip="tooltip_trigger" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px -3px; padding: 0px; float: left; list-style-type: none; position: relative;">but beware meta a: <a href="https://gmofreeusa.org/gmo-safety-meta-analysis-debunked/">https://gmofreeusa.org/gmo-safety-meta-analysis-debunked/</a>
=<a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://ecowatch.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=214ab5fbb3f6015d74ffab4ec&id=12b9229b6b&e=c2e8fdabfa" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Promotion of GMO-Derived Impossible Burger at World’s Largest Natural Food Trade Show Denounced as Deceptive</a>ew 419From kitchen tables worldwide, you can hear a chorus of parents chastising their children with the same refrain: “Stop playing with your food.”<div class="p1_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Children aside, this rebuke needs to be loudly directed at the food fabricators of industrial agriculture. Corporate interests keep toying with the very nature of food — not to benefit consumers, family farmers, workers or the environment, but to fatten the profits of Silicon Valley tech giants, food monopolists and Wall Street financiers Meet Recombinetics, a high-tech gene manipulation corporation with bioengineers in its labs remaking farm animals — pigs, for example. Recombinetics wants to mess with the very DNA of Mother Nature’s oinkers to make them produce bigger litters to supply the pork factories of brand-name marketers. It is also genetically altering milk cows to withstand hotter weather so that climate change won’t reduce the output of huge dairy corporations.<div class="p3_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">This re-engineering of nature to build industrial Frankenanimals is being supported by such land-grant colleges as the University of California, Davis — your tax dollars at work! Of course, this corporate-government collusion faces a high hurdle in the marketplace, for consumers have demonstrated again and again that they don’t want the food they put on their tables tampered with by profiteering geneticists. The tamperers, though, have a solution to that problem: secrecy. The industry is lobbying lawmakers and regulators to outlaw any requirement that milk and meat produced by genetically altered animals be labeled as such. Better to keep consumers in the dark because… well, if given a free choice, people might reject Recombinetics in favor of natural food.<div class="p4_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Rather than remake animals and remake the marketplace to benefit corporations that play with our food, let’s remake the corporate system that is trying to industrialize dinner. Corporate manipulators are not out to make food better or more affordable for us, but strictly to make it more profitable for them.<div class="p5_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">How’re you gonna keep ’em down on the farm after they’ve seen … Angus?<div class="p6_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Not Angus the breed of cattle, and not the time-honored given name of many farm boys, but Angus the 1,000-pound “farmer of the future.” He’s actually not a he, but an it: a robot, toiling away on a hydroponic “farm” that is indoors, soilless and, yes, soulless. Angus is owned and programmed by a multimillion-dollar Silicon Valley startup named Iron Ox, and its homestead is hardly bucolic. It’s in an 8,000-square-foot concrete warehouse in a suburb south of San Francisco.<div class="p7_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">This farm bot is more of a heavy lifter than a heavy thinker. Basically, Angus wheels around the warehouse to lift, move and hand off large pallets of basil, bok choy and other produce to another robot that, so far, hasn’t earned a name. The human overseers of this robotic animal farm don’t wear John Deere “gimme caps,” but clean-room hairnets, apparently to prevent anything organic from contaminating the edibles or the robot.<div class="p8_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Started by a Google engineer, Iron Ox hopes to install duplicates of its faux farm in metropolitan areas across the country. The obvious question is, Why? Well, for the greater good, claims the Googlite owner. “If we can feed people using robots, what could be more impactful than that?” Well, reconnecting our food system to nature, a democratic economy and human beings. The roboticists brag that local warehouses can provide fresher lettuce than what megafarms ship from thousands of miles away. But wait! Local farmers markets do that, do it even fresher and keep the consumer dollars in the community rather than siphoned off to Iron Ox and the Wall Street financiers of Angus robots.<div class="p9_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">In fact, the robotic indoor farm hucksters quietly concede that their real business plan depends on “sidestepping” the cost of human labor and local farm owners. Instead of spreading wealth to people and communities, their scheme concentrates food profits in a handful of absentee syndicators, rich investors and technology giants.<div class="p10_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Deep in his digital brain, even Angus must know this is stupid.<div class="p11_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Populist author, public speaker and radio commentator Jim Hightower writes “The Hightower Lowdown,” a monthly newsletter chronicling the ongoing fights by America’s ordinary people against rule by plutocratic elites. Sign up at <a href="https://www.hightowerlowdown.org/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">HightowerLowdown.org</a>.<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-potato-simplot-health-fears-2618087647.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-potato-simplot-health-fears-2618087647.html</a>GMO Potato Creator Now Fears Its Impact on Human Health<div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-top: 10px;"><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url css-listicle-body-2618087647" data-elid="2618087647" data-authors="Ken Roseboro" data-headline="GMO Potato Creator Now Fears Its Impact on Human Health" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px;"><div class="body-description">Of all the genetic engineers who have renounced the technology—Arpad Pusztai, Belinda Martineau, Thierry Vrain and John Fagan, among others—because of its shortsighted approach and ability to produce unintended and potentially toxic consequences, Caius Rommens' story may be the most compelling.Rommens was director of research at Simplot Plant Sciences from 2000 to 2013 where he led development of the company's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">genetically engineered</a> Innate potato. But over time, Rommens started to have serious doubts about his work and worried about potential health risks from eating the GMO potatoes, which are now sold in 4,000 supermarkets in the U.S.Rommens' concerns about the GMO potato led him to write a book, Pandora's Potatoes, which was recently published. The book is a case study on how a scientist's initial enthusiasm about genetic engineering turns to doubt and fear as he realizes the hazards the technology can create.I recently interviewed Caius Rommens about his work developing the GMO potato and the misgivings he now has about it.Please describe your work developing GMO potatoes and your position at Simplot.Caius Rommens: I left my position as team leader at <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Monsanto</a> to start an independent biotech effort at Simplot. During the 12 years I worked there, I designed a genetically modified potato that I believed was resistant to bruise and late blight, and that could be used to produce French fries that were less colored and less carcinogenic than normal fries.The main genetic engineering of the Simplot GMO potatoes as described in your book was silencing genes called RNAi. What are some of the possible negative consequences of silencing genes?CR: Silencing is not gene-specific. Any gene with a similar structure to the silencing construct may be silenced as well. It is even possible that the silencing that takes place inside the GM potatoes affects the genes of animals eating these GM potatoes. I am most concerned about bees that don't eat GM potatoes but may use GM potato pollen to feed their larvae. Based on my assessment of the literature, it appears that the silencing constructs are active in pollen.You say that silencing the PPO (polyphenol oxidase, a gene responsible for browning in potatoes) gene increases toxins that accumulate in the GMO potatoes. Why are these toxins produced and what effects could these toxins produce on human health?CR: Ex-colleagues of mine had shown that PPO-silencing increases the levels of alpha-aminoadipate by about six-fold. Alpha-aminoadipate is a neurotoxin, and it can also react with sugars to produce advanced glycoxidation products implicated in a variety of diseases.(A Monsanto GM corn variety, LY038, was found to have high concentrations of alpha-aminoadipate, and an application for its approval in Europe in 2009 was withdrawn after regulators raised safety questions.)There is no data on the actual levels of alpha-aminoadipate in GM potatoes, but I believe that Simplot should carefully determine these levels.Similarly, ex-colleagues had shown that the damaged and bruised tissues of potatoes may accumulate high levels of tyramine, another toxin. Such damaged tissues are normally identified and trimmed, but they are concealed, or partially concealed, and much of it is not trimmed in GM potatoes. Therefore, it seems important that Simplot should determine the full spectrum of possible tyramine levels in their GM potatoes.Another potential toxin is chaconine-malonyl. There is little known about this compound, but ex-colleagues had shown that it is increased by almost 200 percent upon PPO-silencing. This should probably be investigated.In your book you write that the GMO potatoes don't eliminate bruising but just conceal it. Please explain.CR: PPO-silencing prevents the darkening of bruises. The suppression of symptoms is so effective that we believed we had overcome the bruise issue. It took me a lot of time to understand that GM potatoes still have bruises—invisible bruises—that are just as damaged as the darkening bruises of normal potatoes. In other words, the invisible bruises still are entry points for pathogens and exit points for water, which are two important issues during storage.In addition to the claim of eliminating bruises, Simplot says the Innate potato provides "protection against late blight pathogen," and "reduced asparagine, which contributes to reduced acrylamide in cooked potatoes." What are your reactions to these claims?CR: The GM potato does contain a resistance gene that provides protection against late blight. The problem is that nobody knows how long the protection will last. Plant breeders have tested many different resistance genes in the past, and these genes are almost always overcome by quickly evolving pathogens.Another issue is that late blight is usually accompanied by other pathogens. In humid regions of the world where late blight is most active, there are dozens of other pathogens. So, growing GM potatoes with a single resistance gene in, for example, Bangladesh is like getting vaccinated for one tropical disease and then moving to the tropics where there are many other diseases.Next, the reduced asparagine levels do lower the amount of acrylamide in French fries, but these levels are already very low in normal fries. Simplot argues that the reduced acrylamide levels reduce carcinogenicity, but I could not find any reliable studies demonstrating that normal fries are carcinogenic.The title of your book is Pandora's Potatoes. What led you to choose this title?CR: During the five years after my departure from Simplot, I realized that I had not been rigorous enough in considering the possibility that my modifications might have caused unintended effects. I then studied the publicly available literature that was relevant to my past work, and identified a number of issues that had been hidden from my view. My GM potatoes had "hidden" issues—like Pandora's Box.What do you think should be done with these GMO potatoes?CR: I believe that, for the short term, GM potatoes entering the consumer market should be evaluated for the incidence of hidden bruise and infections and the range in levels of toxins such as alpha-aminoadipate and tyramine.Do you think the problems you experienced in GMO potatoes will be similar in other GMO plants?CR: It is my experience that genetic engineers are biased and narrow-minded. They may not be able to critically assess their own creations....</div></div><div></div><div><h1 class="widgetheadline h1" style="margin: 10px 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; cursor: pointer; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22px;"><a class="widgetheadline-text custom-post-headline" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/simplot-licenses-dowduponts-gene-editing-tech-2593940275.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 31px;">Potato Company Simplot Licenses DowDuPont’s Gene Editing Tech</a></h1><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-elid="2593940275" data-authors="Modern Farmer" data-headline="Potato Company Simplot Licenses DowDuPont’s Gene Editing Tech" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px;"><div class="body-description"><div class="widgetbrief">By Dan NosowitzThe agricultural company J.R. Simplot Company, one of the largest potato producers in the world, <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/jr-simplot-company-secures-agricultural-research-and-commercial-license-from-corteva-agriscience-and-broad-institute-of-mit-and-harvard-300691960.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">struck a deal</a>with the developers of a specific gene editing technology. That tech will allow Simplot to precisely edit the genomes of crops for various reasons: longer shelf life, drought resistance, aesthetic changes like a potato that doesn't brown when it's cut and exposed to oxygen.</div><div class="js-appear-on-expand" style="transition: all 350ms ease 0s; height: 0px; overflow: hidden; opacity: 0;"><div class="widgetshow-more with-primary-color js-keep-reading js-page-view-and-reload-embeds" style="cursor: pointer; border-radius: 15px; float: left; padding: 7px; font-weight: 600; background-color: rgb(240, 240, 240);"></div></div></div></div><div>
 </div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/food/whole-foods-fails-consumers-again-delaying-gmo-labeling" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.alternet.org/food/whole-foods-fails-consumers-again-delaying-gmo-labeling</a><div></div><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://ecowatch.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=214ab5fbb3f6015d74ffab4ec&id=d256bd5c40&e=c2e8fdabfa" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Mandatory Labels With Simple Disclosures Reduced Fears of GE Foods in Vermont</a>golden rice not certified b/c does nor work<a href="https://kpfa.org/episode/the-ralph-nader-radio-hour-june-18-2018/">https://kpfa.org/episode/the-ralph-nader-radio-hour-june-18-2018/</a>Andrew Kimbrell, returns to make the case that passing food labeling laws will spell the end of the GMO industryctr for food safety<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-food-labels-qr-codes-2565811298.html" class="external text" title="https://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-food-labels-qr-codes-2565811298.html" rel="nofollow" lock_icon.gif="lock_icon.gif" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" font-family="font-family" georgia="Georgia" lucida="Lucida" grande="Grande" verdana="Verdana" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" style="margin: 0px; background: url(">Proposed GMO Food Labeling Could Leave 100 Million Americans in the Dark</a> see <a href="https://ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wiki/index.php/Category:Genetically_Modified_Organisms#News.2FArticles" class="external text" title="https://ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wiki/index.php/Category:Genetically Modified Organisms#News.2FArticles" rel="nofollow" lock_icon.gif="lock_icon.gif" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" font-family="font-family" georgia="Georgia" lucida="Lucida" grande="Grande" verdana="Verdana" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" style="margin: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; background: url(">GMO's</a> 5/18.college 8 wiki:  <a href="http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wiki/index.php/Category:Genetically_Modified_Organisms">http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wiki/index.php/Category:Genetically_Modified_Organisms</a>[<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/05/18/1527984/-Extensive-new-report-shows-GMO-crops-safe,-but-not-always-as-beneficial-as-predicted">http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/05/18/1527984/-Extensive-new-report-shows-GMO-crops-safe,-but-not-always-as-beneficial-as-predicted</a> Extensive new report shows GMO crops safe, but not always as beneficial as predicted]punked gurad?https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/05/gmcrops-india...<p guardian="Guardian" text="Text" egyptian="Egyptian" web="Web" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" font-variant-ligatures="font-variant-ligatures" common-ligatures="common-ligatures" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;">Suicides among Indian farmers have not increased as a result of the introduction of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gm" data-link-name="auto-linked-tag" data-component="auto-linked-tag" class="u-underline" style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">GM</a> crops, according to a large scientific study.<p guardian="Guardian" text="Text" egyptian="Egyptian" web="Web" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" font-variant-ligatures="font-variant-ligatures" common-ligatures="common-ligatures" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;">The finding runs counter to arguments often cited by NGOs in the country such as Gene Campaign that oppose GM crops. They say that the supposed hike in suicides is a tragic social consequence of farmers being forced into debt as a result of growing the crops.<p guardian="Guardian" text="Text" egyptian="Egyptian" web="Web" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" font-variant-ligatures="font-variant-ligatures" common-ligatures="common-ligatures" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;">Farmer suicides were recently cited by Prince Charles in a lecture via video link to the New Delhi based NGO Navdanya as one of the ills of GM technology. He spoke of "the truly appalling and tragic rate of small farmer suicides in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/india" data-link-name="auto-linked-tag" data-component="auto-linked-tag" class="u-underline" style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">India</a>, stemming in part from the failure of many GM crop varieties."<p guardian="Guardian" text="Text" egyptian="Egyptian" web="Web" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" font-variant-ligatures="font-variant-ligatures" common-ligatures="common-ligatures" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;">But the new analysis suggests that if anything, suicides among farmers have been decreasing since the introduction of GM cotton by Monsanto in 2002. "It is not only inaccurate, but simply wrong to blame the use of Bt cotton as the primary cause of farmer suicides in India," said the <a href="http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/dp/IFPRIDP00808.pdf" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline" style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">report from the International Food Policy Research Institute</a> (IFPRI) in Washington DC. "Despite the recent media hype around farmer suicides," it added, "fuelled by civil society organisations and reaching the highest political spheres in India and elsewhere, there is no evidence in available data of a 'resurgence' of farmer suicide in India in the last five years."<p guardian="Guardian" text="Text" egyptian="Egyptian" web="Web" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" font-variant-ligatures="font-variant-ligatures" common-ligatures="common-ligatures" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;">It also found that the adoption of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Usage" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline" style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">pest-resistant Bt cotton varieties</a> had led to massive increases in yield and a 40% decrease in pesticide use.<p guardian="Guardian" text="Text" egyptian="Egyptian" web="Web" georgia="Georgia" serif="serif" font-variant-ligatures="font-variant-ligatures" common-ligatures="common-ligatures" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;">"What we argue is that it's far more complex than simply adopting a technology," lead author Guillaume Gruère told New Scientist magazine. The report identifies a lack of financial support for farmers as a key problem leading many to borrow money from loan sharks at crippling interest rates. The IFPRI is a thinktank funded by governments, private foundations and international and regional organisations....=<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/mexico-revokes-monsantos-permit-2512210671.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/mexico-revokes-monsantos-permit-2512210671.html</a><div class="headline-container" style="margin-top: 10px;"><h1 class="headline h1" style="margin: 10px; padding: 0px; position: relative; line-height: 31px;">Mexico Revokes Monsanto's Permit to Market GMO Soy in Seven States</h1></div><div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-top: 10px;"><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-elid="2512210671" data-authors="Lorraine Chow" data-headline="Mexico Revokes Monsanto's Permit to Market GMO Soy in Seven States" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px;"><div class="body-description"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Monsanto</a> has lost its permit to commercialize <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">genetically modified</a> (GMO) soy in seven Mexican states, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-mexico/monsanto-says-mexico-revokes-permit-to-market-gmo-soy-in-seven-states-idUSKBN1DO0BC" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Reuters</a>reported.Mexico's agriculture sanitation authority SENASICA revoked the permit—a decision that the St. Louis-based seed giant called unjustified.Citing a SENASICA document, Mexican newspaper Reforma reported that the permit was revoked after authorities detected Monsanto's GMO soy in unauthorized areas.But Monsanto rejected that argument. According to a statement seen by Reuters, the company claimed that the authorities did not analyze how the soy on which their decision was based was sown.Monsanto alleged that the permit was withdrawn on unwarranted legal and technical grounds and warned that it would take the necessary steps to safeguard its rights and those of farmers using the technology.The permit revocation applies to the states of Tamaulipas, San Luis Potosi, Veracruz, Chiapas, Campeche, Yucatan and Quintana Roo.Monsanto's presence in Mexico has a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-handed-double-whammy-by-mexican-courts-over-planting-gmos-1882118328.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">storied history</a>, especially over corn, the country's staple crop. The company has long wanted to grow corn in the country but earlier this year, a Mexican court upheld a 2013 ruling that stopped even pilot plots of GMO corn over how it could affect the environment, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-monsanto/monsanto-sees-prolonged-delay-on-gmo-corn-permits-in-mexico-idUSKBN15E1DJ" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Reuters</a> reported then.RECOMMENDED<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-dicamba-warnings-2508117163.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Monsanto Ignored Warnings About Dicamba Risks as Far Back as 2011</a><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-nemastrike-skin-2505418910.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Monsanto Pulls Launch of New Pesticide After Skin Rash Complaints</a><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/corporations-global-food-2504858599.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Report: Global Food Chain Increasingly Threatened by Corporate Consolidation</a></div></div>While Congress hasn’t accomplished much in 2017, it did manage to pass a budget resolution — and within that budget, a sum of $3 million stands out.Congress appropriated that $3 million to fund the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm579348.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative</a>. That’s a partnership between the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) “to provide consumer education on agricultural biotechnology and food and animal feed ingredients derived from biotechnology.”What they’re really talking about is a promotional campaign for genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.There are two major flaws with this plan.First, the FDA is tasked with building a campaign around the “safety and benefits of crop biotechnology.” But what about the risks, concerns, and unknowns?Leaving those out means using government agencies and taxpayer funds for corporate propaganda. It benefits companies like Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta, and Bayer, which collectively earn billions of dollars from these technologies, but does little to inform consumers.Second, the initiative will push forward “science-based” education. The question is: Whose science are they using?There’s very little independent or government research on GMOs and their corresponding pesticides. The lack of unbiased and comprehensive science on biotechnology is a result of corporations controlling who can do research on biotech products.Much of the existing research is either industry-funded or straight out of biotechnology companies’ own labs. The existing regulatory framework relies on voluntary reporting and doesn’t require independent verification to prove the safety of new products before they land on dinner plates across the country.If the government’s going to educate consumers on biotechnology, it must first do its own unbiased studies on the long-term environmental and health impacts of existing GMOs and pesticides. It also needs a much more rigorous — and mandatory — regulatory process.The government must tell consumers the full truth, presenting balanced and unbiased information on the benefits, risks, and concerns around biotechnology. The FDA must openly address consumer concerns about long-term environmental impacts, corporate influence on government research, and corporate control of our industrialized food system.We’re at a turning point in history where we can reverse the harm that we’ve done to our communities, farmland, and environment.Industrialized, chemical-intensive agriculture designed to work around biotechnology is a failed system. It’s increasing herbicide use, exacerbating pesticide resistance, polluting our waterways, soil, and air, and promoting highly processed food and confined animal production.<div>=</div><div><a href="https://movetoamend.org/29-states-just-banned-laws-about-seeds">https://movetoamend.org/29-states-just-banned-laws-about-seeds</a></div><div><header style="margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 20px;"><h1 id="page-title" style="margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em;">29 States Just Banned Laws About Seeds</h1></header><div id="content"><div class="region region-content"><div id="block-system-main" class="block block-system" style="position: relative; margin: 0px;"><div class="block-inner clearfix" style="margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 20px; zoom: 1;"><div class="block-content content" style="padding-bottom: 1.5em;"><article id="article-19816" class="article article-type-announcement clearfix" about="/29-states-just-banned-laws-about-seeds" typeof="sioc:Item foaf:Document" role="article" style="zoom: 1; margin-bottom: 20px;"><div class="article-content"><div class="field field-name-field-date field-type-datetime field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">August 22, 2017</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Kristina Johnson</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/food/2017/08/29-states-just-banned-laws-about-seeds/" target="blank" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Mother Jones</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded">With little notice, more than two dozen state legislatures have passed “seed-preemption laws” designed to block counties and cities from adopting their own rules on the use of seeds, including bans on GMOs. Opponents say that there’s nothing more fundamental than a seed, and that now, in many parts of the country, decisions about what can be grown have been taken out of local control and put solely in the hands of the state.“This bill should be viewed for what it is — a gag order on public debate,” says Kristina Hubbard, director of advocacy and communications at the<a href="https://www.seedalliance.org/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;"> Organic Seed Alliance</a>, a national advocacy group, and a resident of Montana, which along with Texas passed a seed-preemption bill this year. “This thinly disguised attack on local democracy can be easily traced to out-of-state, corporate interests that want to quash local autonomy.”Seed-preemption laws are part of a spate of legislative initiatives by industrial agriculture, including ag-gag laws passed in several states that legally prohibit outsiders from photographing farms, and “right-to-farm” laws that make it easier to snuff out complaints about animal welfare. The seed laws, critics say, are a related thrust meant to protect the interests of agro-chemical companies.Nearly every seed-preemption law in the country borrows language from a<a href="https://www.alec.org/model-policy/pre-emption-local-agriculture-laws-act/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;"> 2013 model bill</a> drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).The council is “a pay-to-play operation where corporations buy a seat and a vote on ‘task forces’ to advance their legislative wish lists,” essentially “voting as equals” with state legislators on bills, according to <a href="http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/What_is_ALEC%3F" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">The Center for Media and Democracy</a>. ALEC’s corporate members include the Koch brothers as well as some of the largest seed-chemical companies — Monsanto, Bayer, and DuPont — which want to make sure GMO bans, like those enacted in Jackson County, Oregon, and Boulder County, Colorado, don’t become a trend.Seed-preemption laws have been adopted in 29 states, including Oregon — one of the world’s top five seed-producing regions — California, Iowa, and Colorado. In Oregon, the bill was greenlighted in 2014 after Monsanto and Syngenta spent nearly $500,000 fighting a GMO ban in Jackson County. Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, and Syngenta also spent more than<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Maui_County_Genetically_Modified_Organism_Moratorium_Initiative(November_2014)" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;"> $6.9 million opposing anti-GMO rules</a> in three Hawaiian counties, and thousands more in<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/06/12506/pesticide-and-gmo-corporations-spend-big-hawaii" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;"> campaign donations</a>. (These companies are also involved in mergers that, if approved, would create three seed-agrochemical giants.)....</div></div></div></div></article></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="headline js-headline" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 8px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><h1 class="headlinetitle" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 3.25rem; visibility: visible; letter-spacing: 0.5px; max-width: 1024px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Obama Expands Monsanto Doctrine By Signing DARK Act And Invalidating Vermont GMO Labeling Law</h1></div><div class="timestamp timestamp--contributor" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 5px 0px 7px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.375rem; display: inline-block; height: 20px;">08/09/2016 </div><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-signs-dark-act-to-invalidate-vermonts-landmark_us_57a644c7e4b0ccb023727b2d">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-signs-dark-act-to-invalidate-vermonts-landmark_us_57a644c7e4b0ccb023727b2d</a>In a stark demonstration of the power of the agrochemical industry to dictate the terms of our nation’s food safety system, President Obama recently ignored <a href="http://www.kcsg.com/view/full_story/27231003/article-Coalition-petitions-to-White-House-demanding-President-veto-DARK-Act" rel="nofollow" data-beacon="{" p="p" lnid="lnid" petitioners="petitioners" mpid="mpid" plid="plid" http="http" www.kcsg.com="www.kcsg.com" view="view" full_story="full_story" article-coalition-petitions-to-white-house-demanding-president-veto-dark-act="article-Coalition-petitions-to-White-House-demanding-President-veto-DARK-Act" data-beacon-parsed="true" class="bn-clickable" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(13, 190, 152) 0px -2px 0px inset;">250,000 petitioners</a> and signed into law Senate Bill 764, known to many as the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act.<div class="content-list-component bn-content-list-text text" data-beacon="{" p="p" mnid="mnid" citation="citation" data-beacon-parsed="true" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; width: 705px; max-width: 720px; min-width: initial;">The DARK Act was boiled up by agrochemical industry lobbyists and their allies in Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) to prevent Vermont from becoming the first state in the country to implement a mandatory GMO labeling on food packaging.</div><div class="content-list-component bn-content-list-text text" data-beacon="{" p="p" mnid="mnid" citation="citation" data-beacon-parsed="true" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; width: 705px; max-width: 720px; min-width: initial;">Employing the Orwellian style with which the corporate media promotes the false narratives of corporate-corrupted politicians, ABC News made no mention of the Vermont law, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/obama-signs-bill-mandating-gmo-labeling/story?id=41004057" rel="nofollow" data-beacon="{" p="p" lnid="lnid" instead="instead" reporting="reporting" that="that" the="the" bill="bill" mpid="mpid" plid="plid" http="http" abcnews.go.com="abcnews.go.com" us="US" obama-signs-bill-mandating-gmo-labeling="obama-signs-bill-mandating-gmo-labeling" story="story" id="41004057" data-beacon-parsed="true" class="bn-clickable" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(13, 190, 152) 0px -2px 0px inset;">instead reporting that the bill</a> “creates a federal labeling standard for foods containing genetically modified ingredients.” White House spokeswoman Katie Hill told ABC News, “This measure will provide new opportunities for consumers to have access to information about their food.”</div><div class="content-list-component bn-content-list-text text" data-beacon="{" p="p" mnid="mnid" citation="citation" data-beacon-parsed="true" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; width: 705px; max-width: 720px; min-width: initial;">Professor Laura Murphy, director of the Environmental & Natural Resources Law Clinic at Vermont Law School, observed that the new law, in fact, does the opposite of creating consumer transparency for GMO food. “If Congress were really interested in providing consumers with information, it could have adopted Vermont’s on-package label that companies are already using across the country,” Murphy explained. “Instead, Congress created a mechanism for companies to hide behind QR codes and trample on state efforts to provide their citizens with actual information.  As if this weren’t bad enough, the federal law has a confusing definition of ‘bioengineering’ that gives USDA the authority to determine how much of a product needs to be bioengineered before a label is required, and prevents even the food companies from certain types of disclosure. “</div><div class="content-list-component bn-content-list-text text" data-beacon="{" p="p" mnid="mnid" citation="citation" data-beacon-parsed="true" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; width: 705px; max-width: 720px; min-width: initial;">As <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenberg/will-the-new-monsanto-doc_b_10452008.html" data-beacon="{" p="p" lnid="lnid" i="I" wrote="wrote" here="here" last="last" month="month" mpid="mpid" plid="plid" http="http" www.huffingtonpost.com="www.huffingtonpost.com" jonathan-greenberg="jonathan-greenberg" will-the-new-monsanto-doc_b_10452008.html="will-the-new-monsanto-doc_b_10452008.html" data-beacon-parsed="true" class="bn-clickable" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(13, 190, 152) 0px -2px 0px inset;">I wrote here last month,</a> what I call</div><div class="content-list-component bn-content-list-text text" data-beacon="{" p="p" mnid="mnid" citation="citation" data-beacon-parsed="true" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; width: 705px; max-width: 720px; min-width: initial;"><blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 5px 0px 25px; padding: 15px 15px 15px 30px; border: none; line-height: 1.5em;">the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenberg/will-the-new-monsanto-doc_b_10452008.html" target="" rel="" data-beacon="{" p="p" lnid="lnid" monsanto="Monsanto" doctrine="Doctrine" mpid="mpid" plid="plid" http="http" www.huffingtonpost.com="www.huffingtonpost.com" jonathan-greenberg="jonathan-greenberg" will-the-new-monsanto-doc_b_10452008.html="will-the-new-monsanto-doc_b_10452008.html" data-beacon-parsed="true" class="bn-clickable" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(13, 190, 152) 0px -2px 0px inset;">Monsanto Doctrine </a>is the newly emerging legal right of agrochemical corporations to do whatever they want, regardless of county and state laws created to protect public health, safety and the environment from toxic pesticides in our food, water and soil.....</blockquote></div>2/14
USA Food Fight over GMOs Intensifies

Confronted in the U.S. with the inevitability of mandatory state GMO food labeling laws—laws that will likely, as in Europe, drive GMOs off supermarket shelves—industrial food and biotech corporations are in a panic. After being forced to <a target="blank" href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_29171.cfm%20" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;">spend $70 million</a>, and then barely defeating (51-49%) two citizen ballot initiatives in California and Washington State, Big Food and biotech’s front group, the GMA is facing criminal charges in Washington State for <a target="blank" href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28550.cfm%20" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;">illegally laundering</a> over $11 million in campaign donations. The GMA engaged in this blatant money laundering to shield its members, Big Food Inc. and their brands, including Coca-Cola (Honest Tea and Odwalla), Pepsi (Frito-Lay and Naked Juice), General Mills (Cheerios, Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm), Kellogg’s (Kashi), Kraft, Dean Foods (Horizon, White Wave), from consumer wrath and marketplace boycotts over the GMO labeling issue. 

Sensing defeat in upcoming ballot initiatives and legislative labeling battles in Vermont, Oregon and other states, the GMA and the factory farm lobby recently tried to insert a controversial clause into the 2013-18 Farm Bill. <a target="blank" href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28369.cfm%20" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;">The “King Amendment,”</a> named for its author, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), would have taken away the long-established right of states to regulate agricultural production practices in their jurisdictions, likely undermining future mandatory labeling of GMOs, and meat and other products produced on factory farms. A massive coalition of animal welfare, organic and anti-GMO networks, supported by numerous state legislators and state Attorney Generals, led by the Humane Society of the U.S., (HSUS) helped convince the U.S. Senate to kill the King Amendment in January. A similar anti-consumer, anti-right-to-know Farm Bill amendment to nullify mandatory “Country of Origin” labeling for meat, fish, produce and nuts failed at the same time.

Frontline Battles in Oregon

In Oregon, where a decisive GMO labeling ballot initiative will go before voters in November 2014, and several counties have proposed GMO bans, the battle lines have been clearly drawn. Threatened by 2014 ballot initiatives in four counties calling for the banning of genetically engineered crops, the Governor and pro-biotech legislators, in October 2013, rammed through a last-minute provision designed to strip counties and local communities of the right to ban or restrict the growing of GMO crops. <a target="blank" href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28453.cfm%20" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;">SB 633</a>, dubbed the “Oregon Monsanto Protection Act” by critics, is part of the final 2013 state appropriations bill. Specifically, SB 633 prohibits local governments from enacting or enforcing any measures that “regulate agricultural, flower, nursery and vegetable seeds or their products.” 

Jackson County, Ore., which had already qualified a GMO ban initiative for the May 2014 ballot prior to the passage of SB 633, was exempted from the Monsanto Protection Act. As a result, Jackson County will be at the center of a crucial community rights vs. corporate rights battle in May.

But Jackson County may not be going it alone. Angered by Monsanto and agribusiness stomping on their traditional community rights, residents in three other Oregon counties—Benton, Lane, and Josephine—are attempting to place initiatives on the ballot that would nullify the Oregon Monsanto Protection Act, and affirm that community rights, not corporate rights, should be sovereign under the law. 

A similar battle over community rights and home rule is unfolding in Hawaii, where a grassroots-powered Kauai county ordinance has placed heavy restrictions on GMOs and pesticide corporations, and where Hawaii County (Kona) has <a target="blank" href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28890.cfm%20" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;">passed an outright ban</a> on new GMO crops. Six counties in the U.S. have now banned the planting of GMOs—four in California (Mendocino, Marin, Trinity, and Santa Cruz); one in Washington State (San Juan County); and one in Hawaii (Kona). In addition, a number of cities and towns in Maine, Colorado and California have <a target="blank" href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28287.cfm%20" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;">banned</a> genetically engineered crops. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trade-nominees-meat-growth-hormones-2467602005.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/trade-nominees-meat-growth-hormones-2467602005.html</a>...Gregg Doud, who was <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/16/president-donald-j-trump-announces-key-additions-his-administration" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">nominated </a>for the top agricultural trade position by President Trump last month, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3902830-Doud-Paper.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">authored a paper</a> in 2013 arguing that the U.S. should "absolutely" walk away from trade talks with the EU if it refused to drop restrictions on U.S. meat imports.Doud previously spent eight years working for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA)—a powerful lobby group that has identified Brexit as an opportunity to lift UK restrictions on the import of beef reared with substances that increase animal growth rate—such as hormones and <a href="http://newsroom.unl.edu/announce/beef/2563/14863" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">beta agonists</a>.Energydesk can further reveal that Trump's nominee for the new role of undersecretary of trade at the U.S. department of agriculture, Ted McKinney, is a former director at Elanco Animal Health—a major manufacturer of growth hormones and beta agonists.During last week's visit to Washington, Fox downplayed the significance of U.S. meat exports to any future trade deal between the UK and U.S.But some U.S. trade experts believe that getting rid of barriers preventing the export of U.S. beef, pork and chicken will be a red line for the U.S. in any negotiations.Speaking to Energydesk, Daniel Pearson, a senior fellow in trade policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, said that a post-Brexit deal will not happen if the UK is not willing to drop restrictions:"The agriculture community here can prevent a UK-U.S. agreement from happening and probably would unless there's some significant progress on those issues. I can't see the Farm Bureau and the commodity organizations being willing to say yes, let's do a deal with the UK under the same terms that we have with the European Union."<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/genetically-engineered-moths-2463104186.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/genetically-engineered-moths-2463104186.html</a><a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/neil-degrasse-tyson-narrates-new-doc-food-evolution-blatant-case-monsanto-corporate">http://www.alternet.org/environment/neil-degrasse-tyson-narrates-new-doc-food-evolution-blatant-case-monsanto-corporate</a>Some 
industry messaging efforts are so heavy-handed they end up highlighting their own PR tactics more than the message they are trying to convey. That's the problem with "<a href="http://foodevolutionmovie.com/">Food Evolution</a>," a new documentary by Academy Award-nominated director Scott Hamilton Kennedy and narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson.The film, opening in theaters June 23, claims to offer an objective look at the debate over genetically engineered foods, but with its skewed presentation of science and data, it comes off looking more like a textbook case of corporate propaganda for the agrichemical industry and its GMO crops.That the film's intended purpose was to serve as an industry-messaging vehicle is no secret. "Food Evolution" was <a href="http://www.ift.org/About-Us/Our-History/FutureFood-2050.aspx">planned in 2014</a> and funded by the Institute for Food Technologists, a trade group, to culminate a multi-year messaging effort.IFT is partly funded by <a href="http://www.feedingtomorrow.org/content/our-programs">big food corporations</a>, and the group's <a href="http://news.ift.org/2014/06/21/janet-collins-reflects-on-ift-at-75/">president at the time</a> was Janet Collins, a former DuPont and Monsanto executive who <a href="http://www.croplifeamerica.org/croplife-america-hires-dr-janet-collins-as-senior-vice-president-of-science-and-regulatory-affairs/">now works</a> for CropLife America, the pesticide trade association. IFT's president-elect Cindy Stewart works for DuPont.IFT chose Kennedy to direct the film, but he and producer Trace Sheehan <a href="https://foodevolutionmovie.com/about/the-film/">say they had</a> complete control over the film they describe as a fully independent investigation into the topic of GMOs including all points of view. The film’s credibility suffers from their choice to embrace only the scientists who side with the chemical industry players who profit from GMOs and the chemicals used on them, while ignoring science and data that doesn’t fit that agenda.The 'Monsanto science treatment'The clearest example of scientific dishonesty in "Food Evolution" is the way the film deals with glyphosate. The weedkiller chemical is at the heart of the GMO story, since <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx">80-90 percent of GMO crops</a> are genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate."Food Evolution" reports that the <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/glyphosate-now-most-used-agricultural-chemical-ever-422419">increase in glyphosate use</a> due to GMOs is not a problem, because glyphosate is safe. Two sources establish this claim in the film: A farmer says glyphosate has "very, very low toxicity; lower than coffee, lower than salt," and Monsanto’s Robb Fraley—in response to a woman in an audience who asks him about science linking glyphosate to birth defects and cancer—tells her that’s all just "pseudoscience."There is no mention of the carcinogenicity concerns that are engulfing Monsanto in an <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/06/02/monsanto-les-moissons-du-fiel_5137487_3244.html">international science scandal</a>, or the many farmers who are <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/">suing Monsanto</a> alleging they got cancer from the company’s glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide. There is no mention of the 2015 report by the World Health Organization’s cancer agency that classified glyphosate as a <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/2016/glyphosate_IARC2016.php">probable human carcinogen</a>, or <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals/glyphosate">California’s decision</a> to add glyphosate to the Prop 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, or the peer-reviewed studies that have linked <a href="https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0">various adverse health outcomes</a> to glyphosate and Roundup.Instead of an objective look at the evidence, "Food Evolution" gives viewers the full "Monsanto science treatment": Any science that raises concerns about the possible health risks of agrichemical products should be ignored, while studies that put those products in a favorable light is the only science worth discussing.Double standards in science and transparencyEqual treatment of interview subjects with different points of view would have helped the credibility of "Food Evolution." Instead, the film paints the GMO critics it features as dishonest or out to make a buck off the organic industry, while leaving out key details about its pro-industry sources.In one scene, the film’s main character, UC Davis professor Alison van Eenennaam, frets that appearing onstage with a Monsanto executive at a debate could sully her independent reputation. Viewers never learn that she used to work for Monsanto, or that she holds <a href="http://patents.justia.com/inventor/alison-van-eenennaam">several GE patents</a> which suggest a financial interest in the topic at hand.Pro-industry scientist Pamela Ronald, another key science source, gets the hero treatment with no mention that <a href="http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/can-the-scientific-reputation-of-pamela-ronald-public-face-of-gmos-be-salvaged/">two of her studies</a> have been retracted. Yet viewers are hammered with news that a study by French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini—which found kidney problems and tumors in rats fed GMO corn—was "retracted, retracted, retracted!"The film leaves out the fact that the study was <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463">subsequently republished</a>, and was retracted in the first place after a former Monsanto employee took an <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2016/07/11/la-discrete-influence-de-monsanto_4967784_1650684.html">editorial position</a>with the journal where it was originally published. The 'Africa needs GMOs' narrativeIn another neatly spun narrative, "Food Evolution" takes viewers on an emotional journey to the developing world, and along another favorite industry messaging track: rather than focus on how genetic engineering is used in our food system now—primarily to convey herbicide tolerance—we should focus on how it might possibly be used in the future.With plenty of airtime and dramatic tension, the film examines the problem of banana wilt, a disease killing staple crops in Africa, and leads viewers to believe that genetic engineering will save the crop, the farmers and the community.Maybe. But the film neglects to mention that the savior GE technology is not yet available and might not even work. According to a paper in <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.12170/epdf">Plant Biotechnology Journal</a>, the resistance shown in the lab is robust but may not be durable in open fields.   Meanwhile, a low-tech solution is working well and looks like it could use some investment. According to a 2012 paper in the <a href="http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1379961894_Kubiriba%20et%20al.pdf">Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics</a>, farmer field schools, which help growers acquire hands-on knowledge of techniques to prevent banana wilt, led to lower infection rates and high crop recovery in Uganda. Results from farmer field schools "have been remarkable," <a href="http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/7418/icode/">according to the United Nations</a>.Yet the solution doesn’t even warrant a mention in "Food Evolution.""It's fundamentally dishonest of the film to tout a GE solution that may not even work, as the scientists themselves acknowledge," said Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, "while failing to point out another way to control the problem that works very well, but doesn't involve selling a product to make money."Did Monsanto have anything to do with 'Food Evolution'?Monsanto and allies were discussing plans for a documentary in late 2013, according to <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/movie.pdf">emails obtained</a> by U.S. Right to Know. The emails do not contain evidence linking those discussions to "Food Evolution," but they do establish Monsanto’s desire for a film that sounds surprisingly similar to the one Kennedy created.Monsanto’s Eric Sachs <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/movie.pdf">wrote in December 2013</a> to a group of PR advisors: “There is clearly a lot of interest to pursue a documentary film. Importantly, the consensus was the Monsanto’s participation was welcome, particularly in the planning phase."He recommended a January 2014 planning call. Jon Entine of the <a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/">Genetic Literacy Project</a> stepped up to take the lead, and mentioned he had “gotten a personal pledge of $100,000 from a private business person if we can get" (the rest of the line is cut off). Entine also has a connection to the Institute for Food Technologists; he spoke about "<a href="http://www.acsh.org/news/2012/07/23/jon-entine-on-anti-food-activism">anti-food activism</a>" at IFT’s 2012 annual meeting.Another person mentioned in the Monsanto emails, Karl Haro von Mogel—who had discussed <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/movie.pdf">with Sachs</a> "the downsides of a film funded by the 'Big 6'" and suggested "what would matter more than their money is their participation"—was interviewed in "Food Evolution," and was also involved in filming one scene, which suggests some behind the scenes coordination with the filmmakers.In reaction to the emails, Kennedy wrote <a href="https://twitter.com/garyruskin/status/868489555086721025/photo/1">on Twitter</a>: "@foodevomovie has had ZERO $ or INPUT from <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Monsanto?src=hash">#Monsanto</a>. We are fully transparent & happy 2 have fact-based dialogue‬."He said in an interview, "that email exchange had absolutely nothing to do with our project whatsoever … we hadn't even committed to making the film with IFT at that date in 2013."The people in the email exchange were not involved in filming or advising, he said, and Karl Haro von Mogel "was a subject in the film and had no involvement or influence on any creative/editorial decisions on the film at any point in the production. Also it may be useful to point out that the email conversation you reference occurred long before we ever even knew Karl or any of these people."Sneak peek behind the scenesAnother email exchange obtained by <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/top-findings-of-the-u-s-right-to-know-investigations/">U.S. Right to Know</a> offers a peek behind the scenes at the narrative development in "Food Evolution." The exchange depicts Kennedy's search for examples to feature for "us/developing world need GMO.""Any other 'us/developing world need GMO' you can give me names of aside from oranges? Shintikus lettuce?" Kennedy asked. Producer Trace Sheehan responded with a list of GMO products including drought-tolerant rice, allergy-free peanuts, carcinogen-free potatoes … “and then button with Golden Rice."When Kennedy pushed for “the top GMO crops currently in use, and what countries," Mark Lynas of the <a href="http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986952/why_is_cornell_university_hosting_a_gmo_propaganda_campaign.html">Cornell Alliance for Science</a> wrote, “Really Bt brinjal in Bangladesh is the only one that is truly GMO in and is in widespread operation."The film's frame-driven reporting ignores that detail about the lack of operational GMO solutions, and doesn't mention that the closer example, vitamin-A enhanced Golden Rice, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/food/2016/02/golden-rice-still-showing-promise-still-not-field-ready/">still isn’t available</a> despite huge investments and years of trials, because it doesn't work as well in the field as existing rice strains.   What is propaganda?In a scene that is supposed to convey scientific credibility, "Food Evolution" flashes the logo of the American Council on Science and Health at the very moment Neil deGrasse Tyson says there is a global consensus on the safety of GMOs. It's a fitting slip. ASCH is a <a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/">corporate front group</a> closely aligned with Monsanto.The ACSH logo scene also appears in the background in a <a href="https://climateone.org/video/defense-food-evolution">2-minute clip</a> from a recent Climate One debate, as Kennedy pushed back against the suggestion that his film is propaganda."How do we determine what is propaganda?" Kennedy asked. "I say one of the ways we do it is (to ask), are results asked for, or results promised? I was not asked for results and I did not promise results. If you have a problem with the film, the problem lies with me."This review originally appeared in <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/food-evolution-gmo-film-showcases-chemical-industry_us_5942b09ce4b024b7e0df49db">Huffington Post</a>.Watch the trailer for "Food Evolution":
Judge to FDA: Agency Must Pull Aside Curtain on GE SalmonFeb. 11, 2017 05:53PM EST Subscribe to EcoWatch  EarthjusticeBy Jessica A. Knoblauch
A U.S. District Court judge took the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to task on Jan. 10 for withholding government documents related to the agency's approval of genetically engineered (GE) salmon. The judge's decision is a big win for public transparency, but it's also a small step toward finally doing a proper evaluation of the risks posed by GE animals—which could one day end up on our dinner plates.
In 2015, the FDA approved GE salmon made from the DNA of three different animals: Atlantic salmon, deep water ocean eelpout, and Pacific Chinook salmon. The GE version is intended to grow faster than conventional farmed salmon, reportedly getting to commercial size in half the time.

Even though this is the first time any government in the world has approved a GE animal for commercial sale and consumption, so far the FDA has taken a lackadaisical approach to evaluating the salmon's potential for harm to wild salmon and the environment. If the GE salmon were to escape, it could threaten wild salmon populations by outcompeting them for scarce resources and habitat, by mating with endangered salmon species, and by introducing new diseases.
The world's preeminent experts on GE fish and risk assessment, as well as biologists at U.S. wildlife agencies charged with protecting fish and wildlife, heavily criticized the FDA for failing to evaluate these impacts. But the FDA ignored their concerns, so in March 2016, Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the agency.

As part of the lawsuit, the FDA is required to compile a record of documents that illuminate the path the agency followed to reach its decision to approve the GE salmon—much like a student is required to show their work for a math problem in middle school. A complete record is essential in all cases. But it is especially important here because the FDA has so far refused to release most of the documents related to its decision, despite repeated requests for that information from Earthjustice's diverse set of clients under the Freedom of Information Act.

The public has a right to know how the agency came to this seemingly ill-informed decision, especially because the FDA's approach will likely serve as a precedent for the assessment of future GE food animals. Withholding that information is illegal because government agencies like the FDA are funded by taxpayer dollars, which means that any records they create, with only limited exceptions, can and should be available to the public and to citizens seeking to hold the government accountable in court.
Last month, a U.S. District Court judge agreed, concluding that: "the government is wrong to assert that these types of materials … should be excluded" from the record. The FDA is now required to fully complete the record with all relevant documents no later than July 2017. In addition to working to ensure the timely completion of that process, we will thoroughly review the full basis for the agency's decisions.
"There's no way to know what exactly is in these documents until we see them," says Earthjustice attorney Brettny Hardy. "But they will undoubtedly provide a far more complete picture of how we got here, including information that raises legitimate questions about the agency's decision."
Jessica Knoblauch is a former award-winning journalist who now serves at the helm of Earthjustice's editorial team, which tells stories through the organization's blog, quarterly magazine and website.<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/conflicts-of-interest-gmo-studies-2155806592.html">http://www.ecowatch.com/conflicts-of-interest-gmo-studies-2155806592.html</a>no linkOne of the main concerns of the anti-GMO crowd is the supposed outsized influence that the biotech industry has over academia, science and public policy. For instance, you might have heard of the term "Monsanto shill"—which refer to professors, scientists and politicians who are paid to push certain products.Now, a new study published in the Dec. 15 issue of the journal PLOS ONE gives more credence to the anti-GMO concern.French researchers have determined that financial conflicts of interest can be found in a large number of published articles on GMO crops. Significantly, if a conflict of interest was determined, the study's outcome tended to be more favorable to the company that funded it. For the study, the research team combed through hundreds of published articles focusing on the efficacy or durability of genetically modified Bt crops and any ties that the researchers carrying out the study had with the biotech industry. These articles focused on GM maize and cotton developed by Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences and DuPont Pioneer. Such crops have been inserted with a pest-resistant toxin called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt.A conflict of interest was determined if an author declared an affiliation to one of the biotech companies or received funding or payment from them."We found that ties between researchers and the GM crop industry were common, with 40 percent of the articles considered displaying conflicts of interest (COI)," the study states. "In particular, we found that, compared to the absence of COI, the presence of a COI was associated with a 50 percent higher frequency of outcomes favorable to the interests of the GM crop company."This means that conflicts of interests are not only pervasive in GMO research, it could be leaving an impact.
Thomas Guillemaud, lead author and director of research at France's National Institute for Agricultural Research, told AFP that he and his team found 579 articles that clearly indicated if there was or was not any financial conflict of interest.
Of the 350 articles without conflicts of interest, 36 percent were favorable to GM crop companies. However, of the 229 studies with a conflict of interest, 54 percent were favorable to GM companies.However, the authors admitted their study had some limitations:
"First, we explored only two characteristics of Bt crops: efficacy and durability. Other characteristics and consequences of these transgenic plants, including all those relating to the environment (e.g. the impact of Bt crops on non-target insects) or health, merit a similar analysis."
"Second, as we used the addresses of authors to identify their affiliations, only one type of affiliation, that relating to employment, was considered. However, authors may have affiliations to GM crop companies of other types, such as being members of advisory boards, consultants, or co-holders of patents, and this could also have a significant impact on the outcomes of studies on GM crops. We did not consider these affiliations as they are not usually reported in articles (COI statements became obligatory in some journals only recently and, as revealed here, they remain very rare). The consideration of other types of affiliation would require a survey that would be difficult to perform given that more than 1,500 authors were considered in this study.
"Third, we have considered only the links between authors and GM crop companies. Other stakeholders (e.g. Greenpeace, The Non-GMO Project, The Organic Consumers Association, The Network of European GMO-free Regions) oppose GM crop companies in being openly against the use of GM crops. An inverse relationship might therefore be expected between the outcomes of studies on GM crops and the presence of COIs relating to these stakeholders. We were unable to test this hypothesis because we identified no financial interests connected with anti-GMO stakeholders, in terms of the professional affiliation of the authors or their declared funding sources.
"Finally, this study focused exclusively on financial COIs. Non-financial COIs, also known as intrinsic or intellectual COI—due to personal, political, academic, ideological, or religious interests—might also have a significant impact on the outcomes of research studies. It is difficult to decipher intellectual COIs and, as for the detection of non-professional affiliations with GM crop companies, it would be a major challenge to perform such an analysis given the large number of authors considered."
But as Guillemaud noted to AFP, "The most important point was how we also showed there is a statistical link between the presence of conflicts of interest and a study that comes to a favorable conclusion for GMO crops."
"When studies had a conflict of interest, this raised the likelihood 49 percent that their conclusions would be favorable to GMO crops," he added. "We thought we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we would find so many."<a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/local-governments-can-prohibit-ge-crops-says-us-court-appeals">http://www.alternet.org/food/local-governments-can-prohibit-ge-crops-says-us-court-appeals</a>U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decisions Friday on whether federal and Hawai'i state laws preempt Hawai'i counties' authority to regulate <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/gmos" style="text-decoration-line: none;">genetically engineered</a> (GE) crops and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides" style="text-decoration-line: none;">pesticide</a> use. Of significance to state and local communities throughout the U.S., the Ninth Circuit ruled that federal law—specifically, the Plant Protection Act—does not prohibit states and counties from passing local laws to regulate and ban commercially-grown GE crops."Today's decision to allow states and counties to ban or regulate GE crops is an important victory for GE-free seed sanctuaries and small communities and farmers around the country," George Kimbrell, senior attorney for the <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Center for Food Safety</a>, said.In granting its decision the court recognized potential harm to farmers and environment from the widespread planting of GE crops, asserting, "the cultivation and testing of GE plants raise several well-documented concerns." Notably, the court affirmed, "transgenic contamination has previously caused significant economic impacts on farmers of conventional, non-GE crops."The court acknowledged as well that "the cultivation of GE crops also may raise environmental concerns, such as harm to beneficial plants and animals caused by the increased use of pesticides sometimes associated with testing and growing GE crops, the proliferation of '<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/superweeds" style="text-decoration-line: none;">superweeds</a>' and other pests resistant to pesticides, and the reduction of biodiversity." The court went on to declare: "The regulation of commercialized crops, both of GE and traditional varieties, remains within the authority of state and local governments."At the same time, however, the court ruled that under Hawai'i law, counties and municipalities do not have the authority to regulate GE crops (as some in other states do), and that Hawai'i state law places such authority in the hands of the State alone."We're disappointed that the court misinterpreted Hawai'i law and concluded the Hawai'i legislature decided Hawai'i counties lack any such authority," <a href="http://earthjustice.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Earthjustice</a> attorney Paul Achitoff said. "The legislature did not, and the decision leaves Hawai'i unprotected from the harms the Ninth Circuit acknowledged. We believe that when Hawai'i's state courts have an opportunity, they will reject the Ninth Circuit's conclusion on this point and allow Hawai'i's people to protect themselves, since the State certainly hasn't protected them."The court also ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) alone has the authority to regulate field trials and experimental GE crops; neither states nor local governments can ban or approve. This is particularly troubling to communities in Hawai'i, since the many field trials and associated pesticide use in Hawai'i poses significant risks to local citizens and the environment"We are extremely disappointed with the ruling that some experimental GE field trials can only be regulated by USDA, and are considering all legal options. Most importantly, we continue to stand and fight with the people of Hawaiʻi against these chemical companies," Kimbrell said.Attorneys with Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice, who represented local residents, conservation groups, and Hawai'i County in the proceedings, are analyzing the full scope of the court's decisions and will be considering options that would protect Hawai'i's people, farms and the environment."As a mother and a resident of Kekaha, Kauaʻi, I will continue to stand up and protect my family and my community," said Malia Kahale'ina Chun, a mother, educator and Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner. "It is our responsibility to insure that our keiki have access to clean air, clean water and to 'āina that sustains them."<a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/big-ag-asked-congress-taxpayers-fund-public-education-about-gmos" class="external text" title="http://www.alternet.org/food/big-ag-asked-congress-taxpayers-fund-public-education-about-gmos" rel="nofollow" external.png="external.png" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" font-family="font-family" georgia="Georgia" lucida="Lucida" grande="Grande" verdana="Verdana" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" style="margin: 0px; background: url(">The biotech industry has failed to deliver on its promises for GMO crops.</a> The NYT article followed less than a month after the biotech industry asked congressional leaders for $3 million in taxpayer-provided funding to “educate” the public about biotechnology and agricultural production. 11/16<a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/how-one-gmo-nearly-took-down-planet">http://www.alternet.org/food/how-one-gmo-nearly-took-down-planet</a>thom hartmannDARK Act:~ dark actbs<a href="http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/04/the-gmo-labeling-saga-continues">http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/04/the-gmo-labeling-saga-continues</a>--mar 2016Defying the rights of Americans who overwhelmingly want to know more about what they eat, a Senate committee on Tuesday advanced legislation that will block states from requiring that foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMO) be labelled.The so-called <a href="http://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/EDW16221.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act</a> (pdf) passed the Senate Agriculture Committee <a href="http://www.agriculture.senate.gov/hearings/biotechnology-labeling-solutions-markup" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">14-6</a>. It now moves to the upper chamber's floor, setting up a Congressional battle as Vermont prepares to become the first state to implement a mandatory <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/tag/gmo" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">GMO </a>labeling law.The federal bill pre-empts state laws by establishing a national voluntary labeling standard for foods made with GMOs, similar to the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1599" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015</a> that<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2015/07/23/consumers-health-advocates-and-farmers-mobilize-massive-movement-opposition" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">passed</a> the House in July. The Senate bill has <a href="http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-agriculture/2016/03/roberts-committed-to-blocking-gmo-wrecking-ball-new-farm-bureau-prez-vows-continued-fight-against-epa-us-chicken-lands-in-south-africa-212966" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">reportedly</a> gone through significant negotiations to garner bipartisan support. But opponents, including Wenonah Hauter, executive director of watchdog Food & Water Watch, argue that "more compromise will not fix the problem at the bill's core.""Blocking state laws that require GMO labeling will strip away the ability of states to protect the public’s right to know what is in their food," Hauter <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/03/01/advocates-urge-senate-reject-dark-act" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">said</a> Tuesday. "Any version of this bill that would result in anything less than mandatory on-package labeling is unacceptable."Indeed, more than 9 out of 10 of Americans surveyed have <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/06/09/overwhelming-majority-americans-say-just-label-it" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">said</a> they support mandatory GMO labeling. Despite this, lawmakers—with <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/07/27/surprise-pro-gmo-lawmakers-get-big-funds-agribusiness-lobbies" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">significant backing</a> from the biotechnology industry—continue to push pro-GMO legislation.In 2014, Vermont <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/05/08/victory-vermont-passes-landmark-gmo-labeling-law" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">passed</a> a new labeling standard that is due to take effect on July 1. As the first state to pass a law that does not include a "trigger clause"—which requires that other states pass similar legislation, such as in Connecticut and Maine—Vermont now emerges as the GMO battleground as Senate lawmakersconsider this bill.Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) weighed in on the controversy Tuesday, tweeting:...<a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/mommy-bloggers-clandestine-spies-heres-how-monsantos-pr-company-controls-gmo-debate">http://www.alternet.org/food/mommy-bloggers-clandestine-spies-heres-how-monsantos-pr-company-controls-gmo-debate</a>
Sen. Bernie Sanders sent out an email to supporters Friday asking them to take action against a Senate bill that would overturn Vermont's recent legislation requiring companies to label products containing genetically modified organisms."The corporate interests are at it again," Sanders wrote. "Monsanto, agribusiness and the bio-tech industry have spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to overturn legislation passed by Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and Alaska that calls for the labeling of GMO food. In fact, they are moving aggressively now because Vermont's strong law goes into effect today."As the debate over GMOs wages on, the forces pushing for increased use of GMOs continue to spend an incredible amount of money on a marketing blitz to recruit more voices sympathetic to their cause. And if some of the tactics employed by the agrichemical industry seem like something out the Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce advertising agency, well, that’s because they are.In an article for the Huffington Post, Carey Gillam, a former business reporter for Reuters who later began working for U.S. Right to Know (a nonprofit largely funded by the Organic Consumers Association), <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-thacker/peeling-back-the-curtain-on-monsanto_b_9867902.html">describes the pressure</a> she felt from Monsanto and other Big Ag companies to jump on the GMO train:<blockquote>Pressure from Monsanto began when I first started covering them around 1999 or 2000, and it wasn’t even GMO crops. At the time Monsanto was in transition from an industrial chemical company involved in litigation with PCBs to an agrichemical and biotech seed company. They had some GMO crops but they had only been out a few years. They also had the pesticide glyphosate or Roundup, and they were marketing bovine growth hormone for dairy cows. There were a lot of questions about a lot of this stuff.</blockquote>While logical people can debate the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/">positives and negatives</a> of GMOs, the company behind many of Big Ag’s pro-GMO ads raises serious questions about the campaign’s credibility. One of the largest purveyors of pro-GMO literature is the Council for Biotechnology Information, a front group funded by the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/%22Big_6%22_Pesticide_and_GMO_Corporations">Big 6</a> pesticide and GMO corporations: Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow, Dupont and Sygenta. The council hired the PR form Ketchum (which formerly worked on Brown & Williamson’s cigarette campaigns) to create the website <a href="http://gmoanswers.com/">GMOAnswers.com</a>, a pro-GMO website that claims to “answer your questions about GMOs” using “independent experts.” As Reuters notes, the council is “<a href="http://usrtk.org/seedybusiness.pdf">committed</a> to spending millions more annually for several more years on this campaign.”But one of those experts, Kevin Folta, came under intense scrutiny for his pro-GMO literature after a Freedom of Information Act request filed by U.S. Right to Know unearthed a longstanding financial relationship with Ketchum and Monsanto. Folta used the PR company’s literature—verbatim—in his responses on GMOAnswers. <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/brookeborel/when-scientists-email-monsanto">As Buzzfeed reports</a>, he also worked with Ketchum to write an op-ed for the Orlando Sentinel and received a $25,000 grant directly from Monsanto to use how he saw fit.Folta has attempted to color his relationships with Monsanto and Ketchum as innocent, driven by science and his personal commitment to GMOs. But as scientist Angus Murphy, a friend of Folta’s, once said to him, “we cannot paint this as an innocent relationship with Monsanto.”The same Ketchum currently leading the fight to normalize GMOs previously spent six years working with Russian president Vladimir Putin. <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/from-russia-with-pr-ketchum-cnbc">ProPublica reports</a>, “From mid-2006 to mid-2012, Ketchum received almost $23 million in fees and expenses on the Russia account and an additional $17 million on the account of Gazprom, the Russian state-controlled energy giant.” The PR firm was even responsible for placing an op-ed in the New York Times on behalf of Putin in 2013. In 2010, the environmental group Greenpeace, an outspoken critic of Monsanto, accused Ketchum of using "<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2010/11/greenpeace-sues-dow-sasol-dezenhall-ketchum-spying">clandestine and unlawful means</a>” to obtain confidential information to use against it. The suit accused the PR company, under the direction of Kraft Foods, of hiring the private investigative firm Beckett Brown International to spy on Greenpeace, including gaining access to Greenpeace’s trash, conducting electronic surveillance on the group, and obtaining phone records for Greenpeace staff. The suit alleged Ketchum used these tactics as punishment for the group’s efforts to "expose environmental hazards and improve environmental conditions.”AlterNet’s Sarah Lazare previously reported on <a href="http://www.alternet.org/world/meet-corporate-pr-firm-hired-sell-murderous-foreign-regime-american-public">Ketchum’s relationship</a> with the Honduras government. “The company is representing the government of Honduras in the midst of an escalating human rights crisis defined by a spate of assassinations of indigenous environmental activists, including the renowned social movement leader Berta Cáceres,” Lazare wrote in April. “Today, Honduras is one of the most dangerous places on earth for environmental defenders, with activists reporting that death squads are making a comeback.”“One of the things that goes unnoticed about corporate power are the structures that make the exercise of corporate power possible,” Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know, told AlterNet in April. “Here we have a U.S. PR firm playing a key part in efforts to promote chemicals, GMOs and the chemical industries. And now they are doing everything they can to launder and rehabilitate the image of the government of Honduras amid atrocious violations.”In addition to taking money from oppressive regimes and bankrolling efforts to shape public opinion on GMOs, Ketchum also courts mommy bloggers, inviting them to exclusive events to show the “local and sustainable” side of Big Ag. “Stealth marketing techniques, such as these by Monsanto, reveal how the food industry—from biotech behemoths to fast-food peddlers—is working surreptitiously to shape public opinion about biotechnology, industrialized farming and junk food,” author and activist Anna Lappé wrote for <a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/8/food-agriculturemonsantogmoadvertising.html">Al Jazeera America</a>.“Sure, PR is an old game, but Big Ag is giving the age-old techniques of shaping public opinion a new, sneakier spin,” Lappé noted. “Much of today’s marketing happens behind the scenes and off the printed page—on the Web pages of blogs, on Twitter feeds and Facebook pages, through sponsored content and industry-funded websites and on the stages of big-ideas festivals.”Sustainability is hardly the first thing to come to mind when considering companies like Monsanto. As Modern Farmer notes, “<a href="http://modernfarmer.com/2014/09/monsanto-courts-mommy-bloggers-social-media-set/">History isn’t on Monsanto’s side</a>: Founded in 1901, the multibillion-dollar Midwestern-based business has been behind such harmful chemicals as Agent Orange, Dioxin, DDT, and PCBs, the questionable dairy cow hormone rBGH, and the artificial sweetener Aspartame.”For many, the most incredible aspect of Big Ag’s push for increased use of GMOs is the fervency with which these companies lobby against bills that would require labels for foods that contain GM ingredients. Industry executives argue that labels scare consumers away from purchasing genetically modified foods. As blogger Ana Picazo <a href="http://modernfarmer.com/2014/09/monsanto-courts-mommy-bloggers-social-media-set/">told Modern Farmer</a>, “People deserve to know what’s in their foods. It’s called informed consent.”Andre Kimball, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, agrees, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/for-gmo-labeling-advocate_b_10638672.html">telling Huffington Post</a>, “We are appalled that our elected officials would support keeping Americans in the dark about what is in our food and even more appalled that they would do it on behalf of Big Chemical and food corporations.”"[Major agribusiness and bio-tech companies] do not believe people have a right to know what's in the food they eat," Sen. Sanders wrote to supporters Friday. "That is why they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions to overturn the GMO right-to-know legislation that states have already passed and that many other states are on the verge of passing."Considering the millions of dollars Big Ag has spent lobbying public and private citizens to get behind GMOs, it's no shock that it is squashing efforts to better inform consumers. If Monsanto wants to change the image problem associated with genetically modified organisms, it may want to change the image problem associated with its public relations firm first.[Editor's note: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that the suit alleged that Monsanto directed Ketchum to spy on Greenpeace. In fact, it was not Monsanto, but Kraft Foods, that was indicated in the suit.]Elizabeth Preza is an AlterNet staff writer focusing on politics, media and cultural criticism.

http://www.alternet.org/food/mommy-bloggers-clandestine-spies-heres-how-monsantos-pr-company-controls-gmo-debate

http://www.alternet.org/food/sanders-takes-stand-against-senate-bill-would-undermine-vermonts-new-gmo-labeling-law-videoLesislators appear ruthless in keeping Americans in the dark about what they eat—literally. While 90 percent of Americans support mandatory GMO labeling, H.R. 1599—otherwise known as the Deny Americans the Right to Know, or DARK Act—introduced by Sen. Pat Roberts, would have "preempted states from requiring the labeling of GMO foods," according to <a href="http://www.justlabelit.org/dark-act/" style="text-decoration-line: none; line-height: 32px;">Just Label It</a>.http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/gmo-climate-change-science
"GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left," declares the headline of a <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people.html">recent piece </a>by Keith Kloor in Slate. The argument goes like this: Just as certain conservative writers flout science by denying the urgency of climate change, there are progressive writers—he named me as a prominent example—who defy an alleged scientific consensus by criticizing the genetically modified crop industry. We're hypocrites, the charge goes, because we thunder against the denial of good science when it comes to climate, but indulge in denialism when it comes to GMOs.I think Kloor's critique is nonsense. Sure, there are wackos who campaign against GMOs, but not all GMO critique is wacko. In a 2009 roundtable in Seed Magazine, I <a href="http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/scientific_flip-flop/">debunked the idea </a>that there's a scientific consensus around GMOs analogous to the one around climate. I also ruminated on that theme in this 2009 review of Michael Specter's book <a href="http://grist.org/article/2009-10-31-michael-specter-denialism-organic-gmo/">Denialism</a>. I plan to return to the theme of scientific consensus and GMOs soon, but to make a long story short, I'll quote my Seed piece:<blockquote>The consensus around climate change developed in spite of a multi-decade campaign by some of the globe’s most powerful and lucrative industries—the petroleum and coal giants—to protect markets worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The consensus around GMOs—or at least the specter of one—arose through the lobbying and support of an industry desperate to protect its own multibillion-dollar investments.</blockquote>If such a pro-GMO consensus existed, surely we'd find it in the the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (<a href="http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=About_IAASTD&ItemID=2">IAASTD</a>), a three-year project, convened by the World Bank and the United Nations and completed in 2008, to assess what forms of agriculture would best meet the world's needs in a time of rapid climate change. Widely compared to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which definitively established a scientific consensus around climate change on its release in 2007, the IAASTD and its 400 scientists from around the globe ended up taking quite a skeptical view of GMOs—so much so that CropLife International, the trade group for the global GMO seed/pesticide industry, <a target="blank" href="http://www.agrimarketing.com/show_story.php?id=48941">denounced</a> it. "Incredibly enough, the report overlooks the vast potential and highly successful roles of crop protection and plant biotechnology, and misconstrues these products' risks," the group's CEO fumed. Only 3 of the 57 governments that participated refused to sign the IAASTD: the Bush II-led United States, Canada, and Australia.I will return to this important topic soon, but now I want to point out an amusing irony: Some of the GMO industry's most high-profile defenders double as professional climate skeptics. Note: I am not about to engage in guilt by association. I'm not saying that because some GMO enthusiasts are climate skeptics that all GMO enthusiasts are climate skeptics. I'm just saying there is no monopoly on scientific rigor within the pro-GMO community.<div id="node-body-break"><div class="billboard extended">
</div></div><div id="node-body-bottom">Exhibit A is <a href="http://www.hoover.org/fellows/10000" target="blank">Henry Miller,</a> not the late bawdy novelist but rather the political writer. Miller is by no means a marginal figure within pro-GMO circles. He recently took a prominent role in the campaign to defeat California's Proposition 37, a ballot initiative to be decided on November 6 that would require the labeling of most GMO ingredients in food sold in California. (I wrote about it <a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/california-prop-37-monsanto-gmo-labeling">here</a>.) The agrichemical industry, led by GMO seed giant Monsanto, has generously funded a campaign to defeat Prop. 37. According to a <a href="http://www.panna.org/big-6/press-release/big-6-pesticide-corporations-top-list-food-labeling-opponents">recent analysis </a>by Pesticide Action Network, Monsanto and its peers have so far poured more than $20 million into the "No on 37" campaign, supplemented with another $15 million from GMO ingredient-using junk-food makers like Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Nestlé.Some of that cash went into producing a TV commercial starring Miller spouting <a href="http://www.noprop37.com/facts/exemptions/">the campaign's talking points against the proposition</a>.The ad originally identified Miller as "Dr. Henry I. Miller M.D., Stanford University," shrouding him in the scientific glory of a great institution. But at the behest of Stanford, the campaign had to edit the ad to give a fuller picture of what Miller represents, the Los Angeles Times <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-anti-proposition-37-ad-pulled-20121004,0,1204815.story">reported</a> several weeks ago. Miller, as the anti-Prop 37 ad now states, is actually a f<a href="http://www.hoover.org/fellows/10000">ellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.</a> Hoover is an avowedly conservative think-tank <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hoover_Institution_on_War,Revolution_and_Peace">funded</a> by right-wing foundations like Scaife and Bradley, as well as corporations like Exxon and agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland.When he's not pushing GMOs, Miller <a href="http://www.hoover.org/news/daily-report/by-author/10000">can be found </a>defending the endocrine-disrupting, ubiquitous industrial chemical BPA against scientific critics, exposing "Rachel Carson's Deadly Fantasies," decrying "Obama's radical agenda," and making the case for why you should want "<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/04/25/anti-technology-activists-are-the-real-slime/">pink slime</a>" in your hamburger. In a 2010 <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/climate-236862-gore-emissions.html">op-ed </a>in the Orange County Register called "Adapt and Survive Gore's Apocalypse," Miller aired out his view on climate. "Assuming for the sake of argument that the Earth is, indeed, warming and even that it's due to human activities," he declared, "any significant lowering of emissions will be too costly, too little and too late." In other words, the only reasonable response to the climate threat (assuming it really exists!) is no action at all. Well, he did allow for one exception:<blockquote>Actions to reduce emissions should only be undertaken if they're likely to be cost-effective and if they have desirable secondary effects as well; an example would be a significant shift from fossil fuels to nuclear power.</blockquote>Miller is also listed as an <a href="http://cei.org/adjunct-scholar/henry-i-miller">"adjunct scholar" </a>at the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute_And_Global_Warming">ExxonMobil-funded</a> Competitive Enterprise Institute, which specializes in denialist <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHmThyKMKHs">"straight talk on global warming."</a>He's hardly alone in his role as climate skeptic and GMO enthusiast. Dennis T.  Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has for years both <a href="http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=7704">zealously promoted GMOs </a>and <a href="http://www.cgfi.org/2011/01/new-study-affirms-natural-climate-change-by-dennis-t-avery/">bucked the scientific consensus on climate</a>. Martin Livermore, director of the UK-based Scientific Alliance, has <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3638088/All-those-scientists-may-still-be-wrong.html">opined</a> that "all those scientists may still be wrong" on climate change, and <a href="http://globalseminarhealth.wdfiles.com/local--files/nutrition/Livermore.pdf">sung the praises of GMOs</a>.The general shtick here is to defend large, lucrative industries against critics and regulators. In that light, there's no contradiction in opposing action on climate change while also pushing GMOs.This article has been revised.</div>
see also 3rd world pushback 4/16For that last 15 years, numerous organizations and legislators have been battling to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods. During that time 64 other countries have mandated this labeling, but not the U.S. Many of us in the food movement have said that it was not a matter of if we would join with these countries and have GE labeling, but when. Well, it looks like when may have finally arrived.Over the course of just a few days, several major companies have announced they will label GE products, including <a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/Mars-to-label-GMOs-joining-industry-competitors-03212016.asp" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Kellogg’s</a>, ConAgra, Mars and <a href="http://www.seattletimes.com/business/general-mills-to-label-products-with-gmos-ahead-of-vt-law/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">General Mills</a>. Earlier this year, <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4200/campbells-becomes-first-major-us-company-to-label-gmos" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Campbell’s</a> announced it would label. What caused this wave of GE labeling? It certainly hasn’t been a sudden realization that more than 90 percent of Americans want labeling, which polls have shown for many years. And these companies have never been pro-labeling. Just the opposite. Each has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund massive PR campaigns opposing various state GE labeling initiatives.This sudden turnaround was actually triggered by a remarkable triumph of democracy over corporate power that took place last week in the U.S. Senate. That vote involved an attempt to pass what many call The Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act. This bill introduced by Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) was specifically designed to rescind all state laws requiring labeling of GE foods. Of special concern was Vermont’s labeling law, which is scheduled to go into effect July 1, 2016.Feeling the pressure of the Vermont deadline, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto and other large chemical and industrial ag companies put enormous pressure on the Senate to pass the DARK Act. Against this array of powerful companies were tens of millions of Americans involved in the food movement.Most mainstream media outlets predicted an easy victory for corporate power. But the companies soon realized they were in a serious battle. Their primary argument that labeling was going to raise the cost of food <a href="http://consumersunion.org/research/cu-response-to-cornell-study-on-cost-of-ge-labeling/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">got shot down</a> when the study they relied on <a href="https://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/GMO_labeling_cost_findings_Exe_Summ.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;">turned out to be bogus</a>, and food companies such as Campbell’s said the costs would be minimal. Their other argument was that without the DARK Act they would be confronted with a “patchwork” of different GE labeling laws. That argument also failed when it was demonstrated that Vermont’s requirements were the same as those in Connecticut and Maine, the only other states having voted for labeling.Then they introduced a supposed “compromise” version of the DARK Act that would allow them to voluntarily indicate whether a product contained GE ingredients via QR codes, websites and call-in numbers. This proposal quickly ran into trouble when <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/chapter-one-a-portrait-of-smartphone-ownership/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">research showed</a> millions of Americans could not even read QR codes. Half of low income and rural Americans do not own smart phones, nor do two-thirds of the elderly. This grossly discriminatory scheme would also force shoppers to triple or quadruple their shopping time to find out about GE ingredients. They would have to call in to inquire about a product, or take a picture of each product with their phones and upload them, assuming they were able to get on line.The DARK Act was an obvious attempt to hide non-labeling under the guise of labeling. Senator Barbara Boxer correctly called the bill a “sham and an embarrassment.” Then it came down to the vote. By Senate rules, Monsanto and the big food companies needed 60 votes in the Senate to get the DARK Act to a final vote. Despite predictions, they didn’t even come close: the final vote was 49-48 against the bill. Democracy defeated corporate power. The right to know of Americans won. At that point several major food corporations saw that they were not going to be able to bully the Senate into erasing the Vermont law or those of other states. Within hours the dominoes began to fall as one corporation after the other announced they would comply with the Vermont labeling mandate.Is the battle over? Hardly. Chemical companies, including Monsanto, and some major food companies will no doubt fight on, and try to find some other way to convince the Senate to circumvent Vermont and other state labeling requirements. It will be a hard sell. Will the Republicans in the Senate really allow a second vote on GE food labeling when they won’t even allow one vote on a Supreme Court nominee? Will they continue to listen to Monsanto when the company has already announced its plans to attempt to merge with a foreign company to avoid paying taxes in the U.S.? Whatever the corporate powers decide they can be sure of one thing: they will once again come up against a strong food movement. We will remain vigilant in defending our right to know.  <div wibbitz="embed-main-player" style="line-height: 25px;"><div class="bio-new body_environment" style="width: 630px; font-style: italic; line-height: 22px; height: auto; border-top: 3px solid rgb(223, 223, 218); clear: both;"><div class="author-bio">Andrew Kimbrell is the Founder and Executive Director of the <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Center for Food Safety</a>.</div></div><a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/remarkable-triumph-democracy-over-corporate-power-gmo-labeling-has-finally-arrived-us">http://www.alternet.org/food/remarkable-triumph-democracy-over-corporate-power-gmo-labeling-has-finally-arrived-us</a><a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/students-participate-one-first-human-feeding-trials-genetically-engineered-bananas">http://www.alternet.org/food/students-participate-one-first-human-feeding-trials-genetically-engineered-bananas</a>A recent <a href="http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/politics_and_administration/campus/article_8f46f490-d63c-11e5-a2d5-3fce1bbacef8.html" style="line-height: 32px; text-decoration-line: none;">controversy</a> about an upcoming genetically engineered (GE) banana study at Iowa State University (ISU) highlights public universities’ reluctance to engage with students in critical dialogue. Several graduate students, over the course of the last year, have raised <a href="http://www.isutransgenicbanana.com/sign-the-petition-2/" style="line-height: 32px; text-decoration-line: none;">critical questions</a> about the claims made by ISU administrators and others that the GE banana study will save lives. The research will test the bioavailability of beta carotene in bananas genetically engineered to contain more of the Vitamin A precursor. The study recruited 12 female ISU students (ages 18-40) to eat GE bananas in return for $900. This study is one of the first human feeding trials of GE products and the first feeding trial of the GE banana.The students also recently <a href="http://foodfirst.org/over-57000-express-concern-with-human-feeding-trials-of-gmo-bananas/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">delivered</a> 57,309 petition signatures to ISU in conjunction with a parallel delivery to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle by AGRA Watch and the Community Alliance for Global Justice. Critics of the initial questions and subsequent petition delivery use an increasingly <a href="http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986952/why_is_cornell_university_hosting_a_gmo_propaganda_campaign.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">common argument</a> that critical questions about GE technology are somehow “anti-science.” Several GE proponents also accused students and activists involved in the delivery of using their white privilege to keep Africans hungry and malnourished....Initiative 522 would have required the labeling of <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/food-agriculture/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">genetically modified</a> (GMOs) foods, seeds and seed products in Washington state and was narrowly defeated. As it happens, the GMA was the largest single donor to the “No on 522” campaign, spending a record $22 million to stop the measure, according to <a href="http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/judge-trade-group-hid-corporate-donors-to-defeat-food-labeling-initiative/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">The Seattle Times</a>.“There is one, and only one, reasonable inference that can be drawn from the facts before this court: that the GMA intentionally took steps to create and then hide the true source of the funds … from the voting public of Washington state,” Thurston County Superior Court Judge Anne Hirsch wrote in a pretrial ruling.The <a href="http://atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-s-enforcement-case-against-grocery-manufacturers-association" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">case</a>, State v. Grocery Manufacturers Association, was filed in October 2013 by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson against the powerful food industry group. According to a <a href="http://atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/court-gma-unlawfully-hid-donors-identities-public" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">news release</a> from Ferguson’s office, the GMA raised $14 million from its members in solicitations for a special “Defense of Brands” fund, above and beyond regular member dues.In 2013, the top 10 contributors to GMA’s Defense of Brands account and their contributions (as of Dec. 3, 2013) were:1. PepsiCo: $2.696 million 2. Nestle USA, Inc.: $1.751 million 3. The Coca-Cola Company: $1.742 million 4. General Mills: $996,000 5. ConAgra: $949,000 6. Campbell Soup: $441,000 7. The Hershey Company: $413,000 8. J.M. Smucker: $401,000 9. Kellogg: $369,000 10. Land O’Lakes: $332,000The GMA then donated $11 million of the $14 million from corporations to “No on 522,” the release noted. In an effort to shield individual companies from required disclosure, the money was listed as coming from GMA, not the actual donors.<a href="http://fortune.com/2016/03/13/big-food-illegally-hid-funders-of-campaign-to-kill-gmo-labeling-effort-judge-rules/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">Fortune</a> reported that meeting notes, memos and other internal documents from the GMA clearly show that one of the primary purposes of the “Defense of Brands” fund was to conceal member identities. For instance, one meeting <a href="http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/court-gma-unlawfully-hid-donors-identities-public" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">note</a> said: “State GMO related spending will be identified as having come from the GMA, which will provide anonymity and eliminate state filing requirements for contributing members.”Judge Hirsh rejected the GMA argument’s that the state’s disclosure law is unconstitutionally vague, ruling the group purposefully sought to hide donors from public scrutiny.<div class="rve" data-content-width="" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; line-height: 25.2px; widows: 1;"> </div> “In enacting the Public Campaign Finance Laws, the people of Washington directed that they be interpreted liberally, to promote transparency and full disclosure to the voters,” Hirsch’s decision reads. “By its actions creating the [Defense of Brands] account, the GMA violated the spirit and letter of Washington’s Public Campaign Finance Laws.”The court also determined that there remains a factual dispute whether GMA’s violation of the law was intentional and therefore, did not determine what penalty would be imposed at this point in the proceedings, and the case will continue to trial on the disputed facts.“This landmark case has been a long fight for accountability,” Ferguson said in a statement. “This ruling sends an unequivocal message: Big money donors cannot evade Washington law and hide from public scrutiny. My office will hold you accountable.”In response to the ruling, the GMA issued the following <a href="http://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/gma-statement-on-washington-state-court-ruling/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">statement</a>:We believe the ruling today to dismiss GMA’s First Amendment claim will hurt the constitutionally protected right of trade associations to engage in political debate in the state. The ruling today noted that there is evidence that GMA believed its conduct was appropriate under state law, which is an important point in determining any penalty. In the upcoming trial, we believe the facts will show that GMA always intended to comply with the law.Under the law, sanctions for campaign finance disclosure violations can include a penalty equal to the amount not reported as required. If the court finds that the violation was intentional, that penalty amount can be tripled. Ferguson is seeking a penalty of at least $14 million, the Times noted.<div class="rve" data-content-width="" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; line-height: 25.2px; widows: 1;"> </div> As EcoWatch <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/25/food-fight-label-gmos/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">reported</a> in October, despite an overwhelming majority of Americans—more than <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/23/gmo-labeling-dark-act/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">90 percent</a> in many polls—support GMO labeling, the GMA has <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/us-usa-gmo-labeling-idUSKBN0GY09O20140903" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">spent millions</a> in lobbying against mandatory labels at the state and federal level ever since <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/08/vermont-passes-first-no-strings-attached-ge-food-labeling-bill/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">Vermont passed its groundbreaking law</a> in May 2014 that requires the labeling of GMO food products in the state. The future of food transparency in the country is now at the hands of the Senate with Sen. Pat Roberts’ (R-Kan.) Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (SAFE) expected to <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/02/dark-act-heads-to-senate/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">hit the Senate floor</a> any day now.Dubbed by opponents as the Denying Americans the Right to Know (<a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=DARK" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">DARK</a>) Act, if voted into law, the <a href="http://www.gmofreeusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/PatRoberts_DARK_ACT_EDW16221.pdf" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">bill</a> would block states from requiring labeling on GMOs and pre-empt state laws that <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=gmo+label" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">require labeling</a> from going into effect.“Industry’s attempt to block GMO labeling laws is yet another symptom of a democracy hijacked by corporate interests,” Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of <a href="http://foodandwaterwatch.org/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">Food & Water Watch</a>, <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/12/united-states-monsanto/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">wrote</a>. “We the people have elected our leaders to Congress to represent our interests, because we live in a democracy—not a nation controlled by a corporate oligarchy. At least, that’s the way it should be. That’s why we’re urging the Senate to reject the DARK Act and any compromise that results in anything less than on-package labeling that tells consumers if a product contains GMO ingredients.”
 </div><div>
<a href="http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/">http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/</a>

CRISPR.  a method for genetic manipulation that is rewriting the way we change DNA. Scientists say they’ll someday be able to use CRISPR to fight cancer and maybe even bring animals back from the dead. Or, pretty much do whatever you want. Jad and Robert delve into how CRISPR does what it does, and consider whether we should be worried about a future full of flying pigs, or the simple fact that scientists have now used CRISPR to tweak the genes of human embryos.

<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/29/monsanto-cut-jobs/">http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/29/monsanto-cut-jobs/</a>

</div><div><a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/08/brazil-fines-nestle-pepsi-gmos/">http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/08/brazil-fines-nestle-pepsi-gmos/</a></div><div>
</div><div>
<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/29/gmo-food-labeling-fight">http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/29/gmo-food-labeling-fight</a>

As the food fight over the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) stalls in Congress, state-level GMO mandates are gaining steam. At least 30 states have introduced some type of legislation in recent years, including three states—Connecticut, Maine and Vermont—that have actually passed GMO labeling mandates.

With the food transparency movement escalating nationwide, there are at least eight states to keep on our radar, according to Politico’s Morning Agriculture blog.
gmolabel
Deep-pocketed agribusinesses have fought hard to stop states from issuing mandatory labeling laws for foods containing GMOs, even though labeling is already done in 64 other countries around the world and 89 percent of Americans voters are in support of it. Photo credit: Flickr

1. New York

Legislators have introduced nearly 70 bills since 2011 related to GMOs. The bills cover everything from the labeling of vaccines containing GMOs to prohibiting the sale of GMO salmon to the labeling food and seeds.

2. Maine

Last week, lawmakers debated a bill that would free the state from its 2014 law that requires four contiguous states—Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Connecticut—to also enact label laws before triggering their own.

“We want to remove the contingencies to free Maine to act on its own,” the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Michelle Dunphy (D-Old Town) told the Bangor Daily News. “Consumers have the right to choose. I don’t feel it will have a huge impact on how people shop.”

The bill was tabled and will resurface in a work session later this legislative session.

3. Massachusetts

A bill was introduced last September that would require that all foods sold in the state containing GMOs be clearly labeled. According to MA Right to Know, 155 out of 200 state legislators, including 126 from the House of Representatives and 29 from the Senate have signed on as co-sponsors to the labeling bill in 2015. The bill is currently sitting with the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture.

4. Rhode Island

Lawmakers are considering at least three bills that would require GMO foods to be labeled. Politico reports that the first bill requires all food businesses with more than $500,000 of gross sales to post signs informing consumers of GMO food products unless it is already labeled. The second measure requires milk and milk products from genetically engineered animals or that contain a GMO ingredient to carry a label. The third measure would require all GMO products be labeled by Jan. 1, 2017.

5. Florida

Following years of grassroots campaigning, state Senator Maria Sachs and state Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda have introduced three GMO labeling bills in Florida: Senate bills SB 1700 and SB 1708, and House bill HB 1369, Natural Society reported. The bills require labeling of GMO foods and raw agricultural commodities, and require the state to provide lists of raw agricultural commodities at high risk or potentially at risk for cultivation in a genetically engineered form. The two have campaigned heavily for GMO labeling for the past three years. Here’s a video of Senator Sachs at an anti-Monsanto rally in Miami in March 2013.

6. Alaska

The state already requires the labeling of GMO salmon, and now the state is weighing a measure that would ban the sale of any GMO fish or fish product in the state and another resolution that would disapprove of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of AquAdvantage salmon, Politico reported. U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski has long been vehemently opposed the FDA’s controversial decision and recently threatened to block the appointment of the next FDA commissioner, Dr. Robert Califf, because of it.

7. Missouri

Two bills related to labeling genetically engineered foods have been introduced in the Missouri legislature. The first requires the labeling of GMO foods. The second calls for the use of science-based data to assess and regulate of modern agricultural technologies. Right to Know Missouri cited a poll taken in Missouri that indicated 91.1 percent of people supported enacting a GMO labeling law.

8. New Jersey

The bill to label genetically engineered foods would require products to be labeled six months following enactment of the measure. The state Senate is set to consider this legislation.

In 2014, Connecticut and Maine became the first two states to require GMO labels but their rules will only kick in after other states enact similar laws. Vermont, however, set a precedent with the passage of the first-ever no strings attached labeling mandate that’s set to go into effect this July—that is, unless Big Food stops it.

As EcoWatch exclusively reported in October, the Grocery Manufacturers Association—which represents more than 300 food and beverage titans such as ConAgra, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kellogg and Hershey—has spent millions and lobbied heavily to nullify or preempt state labeling laws. A spokesperson told us that the association “supports a uniform national standard for GMO labeling … not a patchwork of different state labeling mandates that are confusing and costly to consumers.”

In a blow to the industry, however, Congress voted in December to not include a policy rider in the federal omnibus spending bill that would have blocked states from implementing mandatory GMO labeling laws.

Following the decision, Sec. of Agriculture Tom Vilsack held a closed-door meeting earlier this month with food industry honchos and GMO labeling advocates to hammer out a compromise.

Few details have emerged from the meeting but it appears that Big Food’s proposal of a “Smart Label,” which consists of a scannable QR code, has been shunned by opponents.

Politico reported Thursday that Tara Cook-Littman, founder of GMO-Free Connecticut, says she and four other advocates “stood strong and united for mandatory, on package GMO labeling.”

“We are thankful to Secretary Vilsack for the time he spent with us, but in the end, there was not enough common ground to emerge from that room with a GMO Labeling proposal agreed upon by leaders from both camps,” Cook-Littman wrote in a blog post on the website of Citizens for GMO Labeling.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Exclusive Video: How Obama Won the Iowa Caucus and What Hillary and Bernie Can Learn From Him

Monsanto Slammed for Violating European Patent Law for GMO Melon

Monsanto Files Lawsuit to Stop California From Listing Glyphosate as Known Carcinogen

Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered Roundup Ready Alfalfa Has Gone Wild

</div><div><div>GM crops: Battlefield</div><div>Papers suggesting that biotech crops might harm the environment attract a hail of abuse from other scientists. Emily Waltz asks if the critics fight fair.</div><div>
</div><div>Emily Waltz</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Download a PDF of this story</div><div>
</div><div>Emma Rosi-Marshall's trouble started on 9 October 2007, the day her paper was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Rosi-Marshall, a stream ecologist at Loyola University Chicago in Illinois, had spent much of the previous two years studying 12 streams in northern Indiana, where rows of maize (corn), most of it genetically engineered to express insecticidal toxins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), stretch to the horizon in every direction.</div><div>
</div><div>Working with colleagues including her former adviser Jennifer Tank at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, Rosi-Marshall had found that the streams also contain Bt maize, in the form of leaves, stalks, cobs and pollen. In laboratory studies, the researchers saw that caddis-fly larvae — herbivorous stream insects in the order trichoptera — fed only on Bt maize debris grew half as fast as those that ate debris from conventional maize. And caddis flies fed high concentrations of Bt maize pollen died at more than twice the rate of caddis flies fed non-Bt pollen. The transgenic maize "may have negative effects on the biota of streams in agricultural areas" the group wrote in its paper, stating in the abstract that "widespread planting of Bt crops has unexpected ecosystem-scale consequences"1.</div><div>
</div><div>The backlash started almost immediately. Within two weeks, researchers with vehement objections to the experimental design and conclusions had written to the authors, PNAS and the US National Science Foundation (NSF), Rosi-Marshall's funder. By the end of the month, complaints about the paper had rippled through the research community. By the time Rosi-Marshall attended a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) meeting on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and wildlife on 5 November 2007, "She looked hammered", says Brian Federici, an insect pathologist at the University of California, Riverside, one of those who commented on her work. "I felt really sorry for her. I don't think she realized what she was getting into."</div><div>
</div><div>“The response we got — it went through the jugular.”</div><div>
</div><div>No one gets into research on genetically modified (GM) crops looking for a quiet life. Those who develop such crops face the wrath of anti-biotech activists who vandalize field trials and send hate mail. But those who, like Rosi-Marshall and her colleagues, suggest that biotech crops might have harmful environmental effects are learning to expect attacks of a different kind. These strikes are launched from within the scientific community and can sometimes be emotional and personal; heated rhetoric that dismisses papers and can even, as in Rosi-Marshall's case, accuse scientists of misconduct. "The response we got — it went through your jugular," says Rosi-Marshall.</div><div>
</div><div>Problem papers</div><div>
</div><div>Behind the attacks are scientists who are determined to prevent papers they deem to have scientific flaws from influencing policy-makers. When a paper comes out in which they see problems, they react quickly, criticize the work in public forums, write rebuttal letters, and send them to policy-makers, funding agencies and journal editors. When it comes to topical science that can have an impact on public opinion, "bad science deserves more criticism that your typical peer-reviewed paper", Federici says.</div><div>
</div><div>But some scientists say that this activity may be going beyond what is acceptable in scientific discussions, trampling important research questions and stifling debate. "It makes public discussion very difficult," says David Schubert, a cell biologist at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, who found himself at the sharp end of an attack after publishing a commentary on GM food2 (see 'Seeds of discontent'). "People who look into safety issues and pollination and contamination issues get seriously harassed."</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>To see the effect that biotech crop research can have on policy — and why some researchers feel that they need to weigh in against such studies as quickly and forcefully as possible — it is instructive to look back to a study3 published in Nature in 1999. In it, John Losey, an entomologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and his colleagues reported that nearly half of the monarch butterfly caterpillars eating leaves dusted with Bt maize pollen died after four days, compared with none exposed to untransformed pollen. The media and the anti-GMO community erupted. "Gene Spliced Corn Imperils Butterflies" headlined the 20 May 1999 San Francisco Chronicle. Greenpeace activists demonstrated in front of the US Capitol dressed as monarch butterflies, collapsing from 'killer' GM maize.</div><div>
</div><div>In response, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told seed companies to submit data about the toxicity of Bt maize pollen in monarch butterflies or lose the right to sell the maize. Scientists dived into the research, using industry and government funding. The effort produced six PNAS papers in 2001 that concluded that the most common types of Bt maize pollen are not toxic to monarch larvae in concentrations the insects would encounter in the fields4. (Losey had used higher concentrations in his lab studies.) "The Losey paper resulted in a lot of good work and brought to a close that particular question," says Alison Power, who studies ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell University. Yet some scientists were dismayed that a single paper with preliminary data gave so much ammunition to anti-GMO activists and caused an expensive diversion of resources to calm the scare. They did not want it to happen again.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The caddis-fly study was Tank and Rosi-Marshall's debut in GM research. The idea stemmed from a 2002 talk that Tank gave at Michigan State University in East Lansing about nitrogen dynamics in streams. A researcher in the audience asked whether organic debris from fields of transgenic maize drains into streams, and whether it has any effect on stream life. "We've never thought about that," Tank told the questioner. And once the paper was complete, Tank, Rosi-Marshall and their collaborators had little idea of the storm it was about to kick up. "I thought the response would be 'So what? We're going to lose a few trichopterans'," says co-author Todd Royer, an assistant professor at Indiana University in Bloomington.</div><div>
</div><div>On a Friday after the paper was published, Federici and plant biotechnologist Alan McHughen, also at the University of California, Riverside, met at a campus bar for a beer after work. "[McHughen] was really annoyed," says Federici. "I don't think there's been another case where I've seen him so really ticked off." Federici says he too was annoyed — Rosi-Marshall's study was "bad science", he says, and they feared that activists would use it to forward an anti-GMO agenda. McHughen and Federici wanted to neutralize any effects that Rosi-Marshall's paper might have on policy.</div><div>
</div><div>The two discussed the key points of a rebuttal letter. McHughen wrote the critique and "circulated it around to people who might be sympathetic", says Federici. The letter listed six grievances with the "sloppy experimental design", and said the publication of the paper had "seriously jeopardized the credibility of PNAS ". "How many busy scientists and how much scarce money will we need to divert to calm this new scare?" the researchers wrote. McHughen got ten other scientists' signatures, including Federici's. On 22 October, they sent the letter to the journal and to the NSF. Days later, Klaus Ammann, a retired botanist and professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland who had signed the McHughen letter, posted it on an online discussion forum5.</div><div>
</div><div>Critical mass</div><div>
</div><div>Wayne Parrott, a crop geneticist at the University of Georgia in Athens, also began working on a rebuttal to Rosi-Marshall's paper as soon as he saw it. He said recently that in his opinion: "The work is so bad that an undergrad would have done a better job. I'm convinced the authors knew it had flaws." He e-mailed the authors, the NSF and PNAS two bulleted lists of flaws that he said invalidated the paper. He wrote: "It is risky to extrapolate from lab results to field results, particularly when key factors were not monitored, measured or controlled appropriately." In January 2008, PNAS published a slimmed-down version of this letter6 and the one from McHughen7.</div><div>
</div><div>Tank and Rosi-Marshall were dismayed by Parrott's e-mail. A few days after receiving it, Tank called James Raich, her contact at the NSF, to talk it over. "I told her to ignore it," says Raich, an ecosystem ecologist at Iowa State University in Ames who worked for the NSF for two years reviewing grant proposals. He told her that letters like these were unusual. But the critiques kept on coming. On 30 November, Monsanto, a maker of Bt maize based in St Louis, Missouri, sent the EPA a six-page critical response8 to the paper, and posted it online. Eric Sachs, director of global scientific affairs at Monsanto, says that regulators ask seed companies to notify them of papers that relate to crop safety, so Monsanto often includes with its notification evaluations of these papers.</div><div>
</div><div>Four other signatories of the McHughen letter went on to publish scathing opinion articles over the next few months. In a March 2008 article9 criticizing four papers on biotech crops, Ammann joined forces with Henry Miller, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, California, to ask "Is biotechnology a victim of anti-science bias in scientific journals?". They called Rosi-Marshall's conclusions "dubious", and said their use of evidence "arguably amounts to investigator misconduct". And in a July 2008 commentary in Current Science10, Shanthu Shantharam, a visiting research scholar at Princeton University in New Jersey said Rosi-Marshall's "offending" paper "carried a wrong message to farmers and environmentalists", and that anti-biotech crop activists would use the paper to "hamper the progress of science".</div><div>
</div><div>Rosi-Marshall took the hits hard. "I experienced it in person and in writing," she says. "These are not the kind of tactics we're used to in science." She was a few years out from her PhD, she did not have tenure at Loyola and her first paper in a prominent journal was getting trashed, along with her reputation. "She's young and was getting picked on," says Michelle Marvier, a biologist at Santa Clara University in California who attended the NAS November 2007 meeting.</div><div>
</div><div>It was at least some comfort to Rosi-Marshall and Tank that e-mails and phone calls of encouragement came pouring in from other scientists. Some of their supporters had observed similar attacks on other biotech crop papers. "The most reassuring thing we learned was that it had happened before and by the exact same people," says Tank.</div><div>
</div><div>What was it about Rosi-Marshall's paper that prompted such a strong reaction? The wording of the abstract — "widespread planting of Bt crops has unexpected ecosystem-scale consequences" — was a particular point of contention. Her critics say that the data do not support such a definitive conclusion. "They absolutely went too far," says Randy Schekman, editor-in-chief of PNAS. Of the half-a-dozen letters received by the journal, most of them protested at this wording, he says. "Why this would have escaped the attention of the referees beats me."</div><div>
</div><div>The authors agree that the wording was unfortunate and in retrospect say that the sentence should have articulated the potential for ecosystem-scale consequences within streams, rather than suggesting that such consequences were observed. "This was an oversight," says Rosi-Marshall. "But we did not expect that this sentence would, in light of all of the other statements in our paper, elicit the response it did. We thought the paper would be taken as a whole."</div><div>
</div><div>The study's methods also came under fire. It is unclear, for example, whether it was the Bt toxin itself affecting the caddis flies, or some other difference between Bt and non- Bt plants. To test this possibility, critics say the caddis flies should have been fed isogenic lines: strains of maize that are genetically identical except for Bt genes. The authors say they chose not to use such lines because their nutritional quality would have differed — Bt maize has higher concentrations of lignin than non- Bt maize, and so is less nutritious. So the authors matched the Bt samples with non- Bt samples that had similar levels of lignin and other nutrients. "To do otherwise would have resulted in a confounded experiment. Pairing the treatment on the basis of isolines might be standard for agronomic studies, but was inappropriate for an ecological feeding study," the authors told Nature in an e-mail. Rosi-Marshall and her colleagues made this point and other responses to their critics in a correspondence11 published online in PNAS the week after McHughen's and Parrott's critiques.</div><div>
</div><div>It is also unclear how much Bt toxin the caddis flies ate. The authors let the insects eat as much as they wanted, as they would in the wild. Critics argue that the authors should have fed the insects known amounts of the toxin in a method called a dose-response study that is routine in toxicity assessments. "The Rosi-Marshall et al. paper would have benefited from additional toxicological data," says Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a former reviewer for the EPA. But the method the authors used "is a widely accepted method, and is generally adequate for a preliminary study of possible toxicity", he says.</div><div>
</div><div>Omitted study</div><div>
</div><div>The paper was also accused of omitting contrary findings. In June 2007, four months before Rosi-Marshall's PNAS paper was published, Jillian Pokelsek, a master's student at Loyola University Chicago working with Rosi-Marshall, presented results from a preliminary field experiment at the annual meeting of the North American Benthological Society in Columbia, South Carolina. The work showed that Bt maize pollen did not influence the growth or mortality of filter-feeding caddis flies. The society posted an abstract12 of the presentation on its website attributing the work to Pokelsek, Rosi-Marshall, Tank, Royer and four other scientists who also authored the PNAS paper. It was not mentioning this study that prompted Miller and Ammann's accusation of misconduct9.</div><div>
</div><div>The authors defend the omission on the grounds that the data in the meeting presentation were not published or peer-reviewed, and were less reliable than those in the PNAS paper. "Field experiments are inherently difficult to control and have lower statistical power to detect significant differences compared with controlled laboratory experiments, thus we included the more controlled and statistically rigorous lab experiments in our paper," Tank and Rosi-Marshall told Nature. Also, the caddis flies in the student presentation belonged to a different family, with different feeding mechanisms to those in the PNAS study. Miller's response: "I don't want to split hairs," he says. "If you don't do appropriate controls or if you draw conclusions that are erroneous, I think that's misconduct." But Ammann says he has a "bad feeling" about the accusation. "Maybe we should have been more careful with the wording."</div><div>
</div><div>Scientists who were not involved in the debate over Rosi-Marshall's paper say the results were preliminary and left some questions unanswered, but that overall the data are valuable. "The science is fine as far as I'm concerned," says Arthur Benke, an aquatic ecologist at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, who called the strong language in some of the criticisms "inappropriate".</div><div>
</div><div>“When bad science is used to justify bad policies, we all lose.”</div><div>What drives the critics? Financial or professional ties to the biotech industry don't seem to be the impetus. Such ties do exist — like many people researching biotech crops, some have received research grants from industry or have other interactions with it — but in interviews they say that these are not the major driving force. Rather, many of them feel strongly that transgenic crops are safe and beneficial to the environment and society, and that the image and regulation of these crops has been too harsh. Many of the critics have been studying biotech crops since they were developed commercially in the late 1980s, and some were involved with the first regulatory approvals. They have specific ideas about how the risks of these crops should be scientifically assessed. And they worry that papers that fall short of high standards will give anti-GMO activists ammunition to influence policy, just as the monarch-butterfly study did. "When bad science is used to justify bad public policies, we all lose," says McHughen, who says he is on a "campaign to make academic scientists a little less politically naive and a bit more careful in their scientific work". Miller adds that "agricultural biotech has been so horrendously, unscientifically regulated and so over-regulated and so inhibited over the past 30 years that to have these pseudo-controversies stirred up unnecessarily does a disservice to everyone and everything".</div><div>
</div><div>Ammann points to the example of golden rice, a variety engineered in the late 1990s to contain more vitamin A. Regulations have delayed the rice's development, he says, although more than 250,000 children a year go blind from vitamin-A deficiency. "We have to get emotional," says Ammann. "I can't agree with the cool scientists' perspective — only dealing with the facts. We live in the real world." In 2006, Ammann formed a rebuttal team called ASK-FORCE to challenge reports about biosafety of GM crops. On one online site, Ammann criticizes 20 reports — none of them positive toward biotech crops — that he considers biased or bad science. In July, he was revising a critique of a paper that appeared in The Lancet ten years ago. "I'm working nearly day and night on these things," says Ammann.</div><div>
</div><div>The emotional and sometimes harsh quality of some of the attacks strikes some scientists as strange and unlike the constructive criticism to which they are accustomed. Benke points out that none of the criticisms on the caddis-fly paper, for example, called for further study on the insects. "What papers like this do is alert us to possible reasons to look into this more carefully," he says. "No one mentioned this." To try to dismiss the research out of hand ignores how science is supposed to work, adds Power — you make a hypothesis, test it, refine it, test it and refine it again. "You keep doing that until you have an answer that is as close as you're going to get," she says. "I don't understand the resistance to that notion."</div><div>
</div><div>Arbiters of the truth</div><div>
</div><div>Some scientists say they are galled by the certainty with which some of the critics state their opinion. "Part of what exasperates me is that they have declared themselves to be the experts in this field, and forcefully present themselves as the ultimate arbiters of truth," says an editor for the Entomological Society of America who asked to remain anonymous. "I personally am in favour of GMOs in general, and think that they are very beneficial for the environment. But I do have problems with the tactics of the large block of scientists who denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge and is outside the ideals of scientific inquiry."</div><div>
</div><div>“It is critical to assert the right of scientists to question each other's work.”</div><div>The critics respond that they are simply pointing out flaws in research, and that this is an important part of the scientific process. "It is neither fair nor accurate to equate pointing out serious deficiencies with experimental design and data interpretation as 'denigration'," Parrott says. "For science to maintain its integrity and move forward, it is critical to assert the right of scientists to question each other's work." McHughen says that he doesn't condone ad hominem attacks. "They are invariably unproductive," he says, and points out these tactics are often used against scientists who don't oppose GM crops.</div><div>
</div><div>Federici says he finds it inappropriate to call the reactions 'knee-jerk' ones. "Losey and colleagues, and Rosi-Marshall and colleagues at the time of their studies were newcomers to the field. Most of the people who found their studies flawed and protested had extensive experience with Bacillus thuringiensis." He also points out that the critics varied in how strongly they responded to the Rosi-Marshall paper, saying "I don't consider writing a letter to the editor a harsh response."</div><div>
</div><div>“Young people are not going into this field because they are discouraged by what they see.”</div><div>Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley, says that the attacks may be deterring young scientists from pursuing careers in biotech crop research. "I have a very long experience now with young people coming to me to say that they are not going into this field precisely because they are discouraged by what they see," he says. Chapela faced criticism from pro-GMO scientists after publishing a 2001 paper in Nature, in which he reported that native maize varieties in Mexico had been contaminated with transgenic genes13. Following the criticism, Nature decided that "the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper".</div><div>
</div><div>At its worst, the behaviour could make for a downward spiral of GM research as a whole, says Don Huber, a emeritus professor of plant pathology at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. "When scientists become afraid to even ask the questions … that's a serious impediment to our progress," he says. Miller says: "I don't see how criticism of flawed science that verges on misconduct should discourage anybody." Researchers could be invigorated by entering a field with such lively debate. "For some people it might be exciting because you're doing science that is relevant to society," says Power.</div><div>
</div><div>Pervasive spread</div><div>
</div><div>Rosi-Marshall's caddis-fly paper did find its way into the anti-GMO rhetoric, although on nowhere near the scale that the monarch butterfly paper did. For example, the London-based Institute of Science in Society, a not-for-profit organization involved in the GM debate, on 30 October 2007 posted its summary of the paper, saying that: "calling a halt to planting Bt corn next to streams … would be in keeping with the evidence [the authors] have provided". Greenpeace included the paper in an April 2008 briefing on Bt maize, citing it as evidence of environmental risk.</div><div>
</div><div>The impact went further than that. On 9 January 2008, three months after Rosi-Marshall's paper was published, France's watchdog on GM foods ruled that one of Monsanto's types of Bt maize, known as MON810, may have an impact on wildlife. The evidence it cited included Rosi-Marshall's paper. Two days later, the French government announced a ban on cultivating the maize. "[The paper] got to every agency and non-governmental organization that doesn't like the technology and gave them a flag to wave," says Parrott. Not that he considers the effort wasted: "I have no doubt the impact on policy-makers would have been much worse had it not been countered."</div><div>
</div><div>Nearly two years since the paper was published, the critics' comments are still pointed. "It was just an idiotic experiment," Miller said this July. But Rosi-Marshall and her co-authors stand behind their paper. "We believe our study was scientifically sound," they wrote in an e-mail, "although many questions on the topic remain to be answered. The repeated, and apparently orchestrated, ad hominem and unfounded attacks by a group of genetic engineering proponents has done little to advance our understanding of the potential ecological impacts of transgenic corn."</div><div>
</div><div>And Rosi-Marshall's career seems to have survived the furore. In May 2009 she secured tenure at Loyola University Chicago, and in August she moved to the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York. There she will study human-dominated ecosystems and will continue to investigate the influence of maize varieties on stream ecosystems. Since the caddis-fly paper, she has co-authored another study on transgenic crops showing that Bt maize debris decomposes in streams at a faster rate than conventional maize14. She says more data produced with the NSF grant are on the way and that the attacks won't deter her from her studies.</div><div>
</div><div>"It toughened me up a lot," she says. "I'm not going to be intimidated." </div></div><div></div><div>DARK act </div><div>
</div><div>http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-gmo-dark-act-cannot-survive-the-light/</div><div>pompeo</div><div></div><div>As expected, a number of farm state Democrats joined House Republicans in passing this bill under immense pressure from the major agribusiness lobby. On the other hand, 12 Republicans voted against the bill citing infringement of states’ rights and local control. With only a limited number of Democratic defectors, this anti-consumer bill will likely receive a cold reception in the Senate. A Senate version of this bill has not yet been introduced.<a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/reports/1413/genetically-engineered-food-labeling-laws-map" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">64 countries around the world</a> require GE food labeling and have not reported higher food costs as a result. More than 30 <a href="http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/1881/p/salsa/web/common/public/content?content_item_KEY=13981" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">states introduced legislation</a> to require GE labeling in 2013 and 2014, with laws recently passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.Center for Food Safety supports bipartisan legislation introduced by Senator Boxer and Representative DeFazio called the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, which would require that food manufacturers label foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. This common sense bill would guarantee all Americans the right to know what is in their foods while respecting the need by companies for a uniform, federal standard.A number of messaging amendments were offered by champions of labeling and states’ rights intended to underscore the bill’s flaws, however all four failed to pass.  Leading opponent of the bill, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) offered an amendment that if passed would have required that any U.S. company who produces a product in the U.S. be bound by the same labeling requirement held in another country. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) offered an amendment that would have removed everything from the underlying bill with the exception of provisions establishing a non-GMO certification program at USDA. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) offered an amendment to specify that as FDA defines the term “natural,” that it does so to exclude GE foods and ingredients. An amendment offered by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) would have ensured that the preemption provisions in the underlying bill do not abdicate the sovereign right of Native American tribes to prohibit or restrict the cultivation of GE crops on tribal lands. An amendment to change the name to the Denying Americans the Right to Know or DARK Act was introduced by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) after the final vote.</div><div></div><div>“We are very pleased that Congress has apparently decided not to undermine Americans’ right to know about the food they purchase and feed their families,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety. “Adding a rider to the budget bill that would nullify state laws requiring labeling and even forbidden federal agencies from mandating labeling would have been profoundly undemocratic and nothing short of legislative malfeasance. We will remain vigilant over the coming days and into the next legislative session to ensure our right to know is protected.”The omnibus spending bill does include language previously agreed to by the Senate Appropriations Committee requiring that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) develop guidelines for mandatory labeling of <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4131/fda-approves-first-genetically-engineered-animal-for-human-consumption-over-the-objections-of-millions" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">GE salmon</a> and prevent its sale until such labeling is in effect.In July, the House of Representatives <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/3994/house-of-representatives-ignores-will-of-the-people-in-passage-of-anti-labeling-dark-act" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">passed H.R. 1599</a>, dubbed by opponents the “Denying Americans the Right to Know (<a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=DARK+" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">DARK</a>) Act,” which preempts state and local authority to label and regulate GE foods. Instead, the bill sought to codify a voluntary labeling system approach, block FDA from ever implementing mandatory GE food labeling and allow food companies to continue to make misleading “natural” claims for foods that contain GE ingredients. The Senate chose not to take up that bill, despite heavy pressure from the food and biotechnology industries.Anti-labeling interests then began pushing for the inclusion of the preemption rider in the must pass spending bill. Numerous Senators vocally opposed the inclusion of the preemption rider, successfully keeping it out of the bill. In particular, Senators Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Markey (D-Mass.), Sanders (D-Vt.), Leahy (D-Vt.), Reed (D-R.I.), Heinrich (D-N.M.), Warren (D-Mass.), Tester (D-Mont.), Merkley (D-Ore.), Boxer (D-Calif.) and Booker (D-N.J.) led a Dear Colleague letter opposing the rider. Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairperson Mikulski (D-Md.) also worked to keep the rider out.“In the absence of federal leadership, states have led the way by passing legislation intended to prevent consumer deception and give consumers the right to know,” said Kimbrell. “We thank those Members of Congress, as well as the thousands of Americans who contacted their Senators recently, for preventing this grossly unethical rider from seeing daylight.”By an <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/23/gmo-labeling-dark-act/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">overwhelming margin</a>, American voters say consumers should have the right to know if their food is genetically modified, with 89 percent in support of mandatory GE labeling,<a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/4150/new-poll-nearly-nine-in-10-americans-want-labels-on-gmo-food" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">according to a new national poll</a>. Nearly the same number of consumers would like to see the labels in an easy to read format.Center for Food Safety supports bipartisan legislation introduced by Sen. Boxer and Rep. DeFazio called the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, which would require that food manufacturers label foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. This common sense bill would guarantee all Americans the right to know what is in their foods while respecting the need by companies for a uniform, federal standard.</div><div></div><div>
</div><div><a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/03/china-clone-cows/">http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/03/china-clone-cows/</a></div><div>
</div><div>hackademics<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/28/sources-funded-monsanto/"> http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/28/sources-funded-monsanto/</a></div><div></div><div><a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/fdas-approval-ge-salmon-based-bad-science-say-consumer-advocates">http://www.alternet.org/environment/fdas-approval-ge-salmon-based-bad-science-say-consumer-advocates</a></div><div>
</div><div></div><div><a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/09/monsanto-mexican-court-gmos">http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/09/monsanto-mexican-court-gmos</a></div><div>11/15<a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/david-and-goliath-illinois-farmer-takes-worlds-largest-agrochemical-company-over-gmo-corn">http://www.alternet.org/food/david-and-goliath-illinois-farmer-takes-worlds-largest-agrochemical-company-over-gmo-corn</a>...Despite knowing the rest of the world was not as eager as the United States to adopt bioengineered food or feed, Syngenta began selling Viptera in the United States before other countries decided whether to approve it," the complaint states. Though some countries did approve Viptera for feed and food use, China has a "zero tolerance" policy when it comes to unapproved genetic traits, Dereadt says. When China discovered Viptera corn in a November 2013 shipment of "what was supposed to be non-Viptera corn from the United States," the country rejected more than 665,000 metric tons of U.S. corn over the next two months. China banned all imports of U.S. corn the next year, but Syngenta "began marketing yet another genetically modified com seed known as Duracade," the complaint states.Dereadt says China, all 28 member states of the European Union and 13 other countries have refused to approve Duracade for human or animal consumption. Syngenta's home country of Switzerland is among this group as well.     "Although Syngenta did eventually gain approvalfor the import of Viptera to China in December of 2014, this approval came far too late to prevent the loss of the Chinese market to U.S. corn," the complaint states. "The loss of the Chinese market to U.S. com has caused diminished prices for com in the United States, and plaintiffs' resulting damages.Further, there is no end in sight to the loss of the Chinese market to U.S. com. As set forth above, Syngenta has now knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly commercialized its Duracade corn in the U.S., d...fda approve salmon after bogus study outed</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div><div>[http://www.alternet.org/food/new-gmo-free-zone-will-protect-traditional-farmers-colorado New GMO-Free Zone Will Protect Traditional Farmers in Colorado]:</div><div>The zone will help traditional and organic farmers avoid the risk of transgenic contamination from nearby GE crops, particularly GE corn. 11/15.</div></div><div><div>=</div><div><a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/senates-first-biotech-hearing-decade-was-lopsided-pro-industry-affair">http://www.alternet.org/environment/senates-first-biotech-hearing-decade-was-lopsided-pro-industry-affair</a></div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div>Central to the hearing is the the issue of labeling food products containing GE crops. Senator Stabenow called for the adoption of legislation on GE food labeling, presumably with language that will preempt the authority of states to adopt more stringent labeling standards. Senator Stabenow said that she wants labeling that “doesn’t stigmatize biotechnology.” The GE food industry is urging Congress to act to override state labeling before the <a href="http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2015/04/vermont-wins-legal-challenge-to-its-ge-labeling-law/" style="line-height: 32px; text-decoration-line: none;">Vermont label law</a> goes into effect in July 2016.</div><div>
</div>RELATED: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/monsanto-scandal-biotech-giant-solicited-academics-fight-their-pro-gmo-war" style="text-decoration-line: none;">How Monsanto Solicited Academics to Bolster Their Pro-GMO Propaganda — Using Taxpayer Dollars</a>The committee heard government and industry witnesses on the federal regulation of agriculture biotechnology, with limited input from consumer critics. Two panels (one representing agencies, the other industry) received questions from the 20 committee members on GE crops, biotechnology, ad labeling. The agency panel represented “business as usual,” discussing administrative procedures at length, while the industry panel stressed the science of GE. The Just Label It group, a coalition of organizations advancing labeling, called for the public’s right to know. Environmental groups not invited to testify criticized the lopsided hearing and the government’s opposition to GE labeling of food.While Senators spent two of the three hours questioning agency officials on their regulatory procedures of GE crops and biotechnology, no answers were given that address scientific studies needed to ensure their safety. When asked by Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) if there was anything that made GE crops harmful to the environment, all of the members of the regulatory panel said “no,” despite impacts of GE crop production on the environment, reliance on hazardous weed killers in herbicide-tolerant crops, and the associated <a href="http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2014/06/monarch-butterfly-decline-linked-to-ge-crops-and-shrinking-habitat/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">decline of monarch butterflies</a>.EPA’s Office of Pesticide Program indicated that it registers “plant incorporated protectants” (PIPs) in 86 GE crops and acknowledged pest resistance problems. Insects that are the target of the engineered plant, incorporated with a pesticide, develop resistance, putting farmers’ crops at risk because of their dependency on the technology. Organic agriculture identifies genetic engineering as an “excluded method” and prohibits its use in certified organic production.As the GE technology advances, farmers are increasingly threatened with crop loss, as was the argument made by Texas cotton farmers last year when 3 million acres of GE cotton was threatened by weed resistance to Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant Roundup. The state of Texas, on behalf of the farmers, requested that EPA allow the use of a triazine herbicide not registered for use on cotton under an emergency exemption (Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act), but EPA <a href="http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2014/07/epa-denies-hazardous-pesticide-use-on-3-million-acres-of-texas-cotton-field/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">denied the reques</a>t because it said that exposure to triazines, linked to hermaphroditism in frogs, “already show[s] unacceptable risk levels.”RELATED: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/gmos-safe-act-will-block-states-requiring-gmo-labeling" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Orwellian Nightmare: Congress May Block States from Requiring GMO Labeling</a>In 2012, Washington State University researcher <a href="http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2012/10/increased-pesticide-use-and-resistant-weeds-the-troubling-legacy-of-ge-crops/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Charles Benbrook, Ph.D. found</a> that the use of herbicides in the production of three genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops (cotton, soybeans and corn) has increased, contrary to industry claims that biotechnology will reduce pesticide applications. According to a <a href="http://www.wssajournals.org/toc/wees/59/3" style="text-decoration-line: none;">series of studies in the journal Weed Science</a>, at least 21 different species of weeds Monsanto’s “Roundup-Ready” crops, which leads to an increased pesticide use to try to combat resistance, escalating the pesticide treadmill effect. The latest herbicide tolerant <a href="http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2015/04/epas-expansion-of-24-d-enlist-duo-challenged/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">GE corn and soybean plants are engineered to be used with the herbicide 2,4-D</a>, one-half of the mixture of Agent Orange and linked to non Hodgkins lymphoma. Experts expect increased public exposure to 2,4-D through the food supply and in the environment, leading to weed resistance.At the Agriculture Committee hearing, the first panel included of officials from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Center for Food Safety and FDA’s Director of Applied Nutrition, Susan Mayne, Ph.D., took opposing positions on GE labeling with the government witness arguing that mandatory labeling is unnecessary because the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) does not recognize a “material” difference between GE and conventional crops. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), a long-time member of the committee, cited the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s interpretation of GE crops as “novel for patent purposes” and asked the panel why agencies were in disagreement about the differences between GE and conventional crops. Dr. Mayne responded that, if there were a material difference in the food safety and nutrition between GE and conventional crops, FDA would support labeling.The second panel consisted of five members of the agricultural, production, and consumer industry. Joanna Lidback, producer and farmer from the Farm at Wheeler Mountain, voiced her concerns about the costs associated with GE crops used to feed her dairy cows. She calculated an increase of $48,000 per year on her farm if GE feed was ever banned, but no calculations for the costs of the proposed GE label. With economic hardships in mind, organic farmers <a href="http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2014/03/survey-finds-ge-contamination-of-organic-farms/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">are threatened with adverse economic impact</a> due to the contamination from GE pollen drifting onto their crops. Organic farmers also report losses due to a need to establish buffer zones.In opposing labeling Daryl Thomas, Senior Vice President of Herr Foods, Inc., stated, “Mandatory labels on food products are reserved for critical information about nutrition and safety. GMO ingredients don’t change the nutritional profile or safety of our products.”<div>...</div><div></div></div><div></div><div>
</div><div><a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/canadian-government-slams-aquabountys-gmo-salmon-growth-claims">http://www.alternet.org/food/canadian-government-slams-aquabountys-gmo-salmon-growth-claims</a></div><div>
</div><div>...Beyond being designed and engineered by humans and created in a laboratory, GMO salmon and Frankenstein’s monster may also share another defining feature — larger-than-normal proportions. AquaBounty Technologies, the company behind GMO salmon, has always insisted that its fish grow much faster than normal Atlantic salmon — but not larger. This is one of the most frequent claims the company makes — to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/business/26salmon.html" style="line-height: 32px; text-decoration-line: none;">journalists</a> and even to financial regulators at the <a href="http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/food-water-watch-calls-sec-reject-gmo-salmon-stock-filings" style="line-height: 32px; text-decoration-line: none;">Securities Exchange Commission.</a></div>But, according to a <a href="http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/Canadian_Environmental_Assessment_2015.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;">recently released scientific review</a> from the Canadian government, AquaBounty doesn’t have a shred of evidence supporting this claim. This is more than a little odd because AquaBounty calls GMO salmon the “<a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aquabounty-technologies-comment-leading-scientists-say-fda-process-for-approving-genetically-modified-food-and-animals-unworkable-216846171.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">most studied fish in the world</a>.”...<div></div><div><a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/gmo-labeling-undermined-bogus-legal-analysis">http://www.alternet.org/environment/gmo-labeling-undermined-bogus-legal-analysis</a></div><div>
</div><div> an <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/09/16/supreme-court-free-speech-decision-clobbers-gmo-food-labeling-advocates-but-they-dont-know-it/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">op-ed</a> published by Forbes last week, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/09/16/supreme-court-free-speech-decision-clobbers-gmo-food-labeling-advocates-but-they-dont-know-it/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/09/16/supreme-court-free-speech-decision-clobbers-gmo-food-labeling-advocates-but-they-dont-know-it/</a>a pro-biotechnology <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Henry_I.Miller" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">mouthpiece</a> who used to work for the tobacco industry wrote a provocative piece arguing that a <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-502_9olb.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">recent U.S. Supreme Court decision</a> imperiled the constitutionality of mandatory genetically engineered food labeling. The claim is flat out wrong and shows no understanding of constitutional law or the issue of labeling of genetically engineered foods. Before rebutting it, some context is helpful.Genetically Engineered FoodsRight now Americans in every <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/state-labeling-initiatives" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">state</a> are working to secure labeling for genetically engineered (GE) foods, which have been subject to significant controversy since their introduction in 1996. <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/us-polls-on-ge-food-labeling" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Polls regularly show</a> that over 90% of Americans support their mandatory labeling. Unfortunately, unlike <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/international-labeling-laws" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">sixty-four countries across the globe</a>—including all of the Europe Union, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Russia, China, and many others—the United States has so far <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/the-cfs-legal-petition-to-label-genetically-engineered-foods" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">declined to require labeling</a> for genetically engineered foods, leaving the public in the dark about whether the foods we buy are transgenic.What is driving this nationwide outcry for labeling? Consumers are becoming more aware that while few whole foods are genetically engineered, a substantial majority of processed foods are now produced with genetic engineering. The public <a href="http://goo.gl/B5aqdD" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">recognizes</a> that having thousands of processed foods produced with genetic engineering, yet unlabeled, is deceptive, or at best confusing, to consumers.Further, Americans are increasingly aware of the risks and negative impacts of genetically engineered crops, correctly seeing through several decades of myths that were carefully constructed by agrochemical companies to promote their products. On the human health side, the public is realizing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) <a href="http://goo.gl/B9wSIa" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">does not actually test the food safety of engineered foods or “approve” them</a>; rather, it has confidential meetings with industry in which it merely <a href="http://goo.gl/2quKHm" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">reviews the industry’s own testing</a>—and even that is voluntary. Americans are also realizing that no long-term or epidemiological studies in the United States have examined the safety of human consumption of genetically engineered foods, and that without labeling, there is no<a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">accountability or traceability to link such foods to proliferating public health problems</a>.On the environmental side, people are recognizing that genetically engineered crops are a key cog of inherently unsustainable industrial agriculture, and cause significant adverse environmental impacts. Genetically engineered crops are essentially a pesticide-promoting technology: They are<a href="http://goo.gl/RaFkeM" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">overwhelmingly engineered to be resistant to pesticides</a> or produce pesticides, and consequently have <a href="http://goo.gl/R7wocn" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">dramatically increased overall pesticide output</a> into our environment. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready varieties, resistant to glyphosate, have made glyphosate the most used pesticide in history, with over 280 million pounds applied in U.S. agriculture <a href="http://goo.gl/hSFYL0" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">in 2012</a> alone. Earlier this year, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that glyphosate is <a href="http://goo.gl/KRhWNX" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">probably carcinogenic to humans</a>.On the agricultural side, transgenic <a href="http://goo.gl/nkC52J" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">contamination</a> of traditional crops from<a href="http://goo.gl/tjBJEd" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">engineered crops</a> has caused U.S. farmers <a href="http://goo.gl/5Nc6Ub" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">billions</a> of dollars in <a href="http://goo.gl/ymErOa" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">market losses</a>. And the widespread adoption of crops engineered for pesticide resistance has<a href="http://goo.gl/RxZVM2" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">proliferated</a> an <a href="http://goo.gl/BuxKR1" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">epidemic</a> of resistant “superweeds” now covering more than 60 million acres of U.S. farmland.Juxtaposed against these risks and impacts, the U.S. public is discovering that industry’s <a href="http://goo.gl/kxAhnB" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">hype is false</a>. Namely, despite billions of dollars in research and nearly two decades of commercialization, there are no crops that are engineered to increase crop yields, reduce world hunger, or mitigate global warming; instead, the agrochemical companies that engineer crops have largely succeeded in making these crops resistant to their own products—pesticides. Nor is there any <a href="http://goo.gl/k2f4R6" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">“consensus”</a> that such foods <a href="http://goo.gl/5cEHpm" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">are safe</a>.Labeling GE FoodsFor these reasons, into the federal breach, state-required labeling efforts have proliferated, in the venerable “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">states-as-laboratories</a>” tradition of American federalism. Overall <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/state-labeling-initiatives" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">over 30 states in 2014-2015</a> introduced labeling bills.<a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/2240/more-states-support-gmo-labeling-bills" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Connecticut</a> and <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/2297/maine-legislature-passes-center-for-food-safety-supported-ge-labeling-law" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Maine</a> passed labeling laws in 2013, albeit with clauses tying their effective dates to similar laws in other states, and in May 2014, Vermont became <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/3136/victory-for-the-food-movement-in-vermont-on-ge-food-labeling" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">the first state</a> to pass a stand-alone labeling law, which goes into effect in July 2016. And despite spending <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/3577/anti-labeling-campaign-tries-to-buy-oregon-election-with-record-setting-19-million-in-misleading-advertising" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">over $100 million dollars</a>, crushing election spending records, <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/2890/center-for-food-safety-denounces-gmas-coalition-to-keep-consumers-in-the-dark-about-genetically-engineered-ge-foods" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">biotech industry</a> has also barely beaten back three state ballot initiatives, in <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/734/center-for-food-safetys-statement-on-the-results-of-californias-vote-on-proposition-37-chemical-industry-spends-its-way-to-denying-californians-right-to-know" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">California</a> (<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_37,Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food%282012%29" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">2012</a>), <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/2711/agribusiness-spends-22-million-25-per-vote-to-keep-consumers-in-the-dark" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Washington</a> (<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_Measure,Initiative_522%282013%29" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">2013</a>), and Oregon (<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Mandatory_Labeling_of_GMOs_Initiative,Measure_92%282014%29" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">2014</a>), by increasingly narrow 51%-49% margins (<a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/3649/food-movement-vows-to-keep-fighting-after-corporate-backed-campaign-buys-narrow-win-in-oregon" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Oregon lost by 812 votes,total</a>).Industry’s All Out Assault on Democracy and Your Right to KnowIndustry immediately <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/3237/center-for-food-safety-vows-to-help-defend-vermont-from-unfounded-attack-on-ge-labeling-law" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">challenged</a> the Vermont GE labeling law, <a href="http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/Acts/ACT120.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Act 120</a>, seeking an injunction stopping its implementation, but after a year of litigation, in May of this year the Federal District Court for the District of Vermont<a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/3888/court-declares-vermonts-genetically-engineered-food-labeling-law-constitutional" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">resoundingly rejected</a> their arguments, upholding the law. The Court agreed with what many labeling supporters have <a href="http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2015/05/39-2-04_Kimbrell.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">argued for years</a>, concluding that<a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/vermont-decision_81793.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">state labeling was not preempted by federal law, that it did not impermissibly interfere with interstate commerce, and that food manufacturers did not have any First Amendment right to keep consumers in the dark about whether their food is genetically engineered</a>. The Court found the reasons Vermont gave for the mandated disclosure labeling—those described above, <a href="http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/Acts/ACT120.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">promoting public health and environment protection, and preventing consumer confusion and deception</a>—were substantial state interests to support requiring labeling. Industry <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/3908/food-industry-appeals-court-decision-upholding-vermont-ge-labeling-law" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">appealed</a>, with <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/4028/center-for-food-safety-expert-scientists-farm-groups-file-brief-in-support-of-vermonts-genetically-engineered-food-labeling-law" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">briefing</a> over this summer and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals set to hear argument on October 8 in New York City.Meanwhile, the chemical industry and “Big Food” have continued to <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/29/usa-gmo-labeling-idUSL2N0Q30Y520140729?" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">pour millions</a> into their assault on States’ Rights and the People’s Right to Know in Washington, DC, <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/03/12415/grocery-manufacturers-association-seeks-pre-empt-gmo-food-labeling" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">making their top priority legislation</a> that would prohibit all state labeling (and any oversight of genetically engineered crop production), known as the “Denying Americans The Right to Know” or <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/3961/the-monsanto-protection-act-is-back-and-worse-than-ever" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">DARK Act</a>.  It passed the House of Representatives in <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/3994/house-of-representatives-ignores-will-of-the-people-in-passage-of-anti-labeling-dark-act" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">July</a>, and is headed for a <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/253630-states-rights-in-the-crosshairs-of-upcoming-senate-labeling-fight" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Senate showdown</a>this fall.And the industry’s onslaught has been<a href="http://www.foe.org/projects/food-and-technology/good-food-healthy-planet/spinning-food" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">in the media too</a>: following the tobacco industry playbook, Big Food and agrochemical companies deliberately<a href="http://webiva-downton.s3.amazonaws.com/877/2a/5/5987/Executive_Summary_and_Introduction.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">mislead the public on the facts</a> about genetically engineered crops by spending hundreds of millions of dollars, <a href="http://webiva-downton.s3.amazonaws.com/877/fe/a/6001/FOE_Top11FrontGroups_1.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">creating front groups</a>, and paying for the help of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html?r=0" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">neutral-appearing academics</a>. Among other scare-tactics is the claim that labeling will increase food prices, which has <a href="http://consumersunion.org/research/ge-foods-labeling-cost-study-findings/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">now been debunked</a> by <a href="http://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/GMO_labeling_cost_findings_Exe_Summ.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">independent studies</a>by Consumer Reports.Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Commercial Speech and GE LabelingThe decision <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-502_9olb.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona</a>described in the Forbes articlereceived little media attention. Like many towns, the town of Gilbert, Arizona had passed a code prohibiting the display of outdoor signs without a permit, while exempting several sign categories. Applying the code, the town cited a local church for posting signs about the time and place of their weekly service, but based on the code’s exceptions, other types of signs, such as election signs, were not similarly ticketed. The church successfully challenged the ordinance as violating of their 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech rights. Reversing the lower court decision, Justice Thomas’s opinion striking down the ordinance explained that the town’s sign code was a “content-based” speech restriction, and thus subject to the highest level of 1st Amendment judicial scrutiny, strict scrutiny, which it failed.The level of judicial scrutiny, or how closely the court will examine a law, is often the critical question in in free speech cases. Strict scrutiny requires a government to show that its restriction on speech furthers a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Gilbert offered the aesthetic appeal of curbsides and traffic safety for interests. The court found these interests too insufficient and too under inclusive in their application in the sign code to survive strict scrutiny. Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Kagan concurred only in the judgement and wrote separately, explaining that while Gilbert’s sign law would fail under any test (noting that “does not pass strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-502_9olb.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">even the laugh test</a>”), they disagreed with Justice Thomas’s broad language of when and how strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard.With even a cursory understanding of these facts, attempts to apply this case to the GE labeling context quickly fall apart. The first thing to understand — that is not present in Reed, nor ever mentioned in the Forbes piece—is thatcommercial speech, like consumer product labeling, is fundamentally different than other forms of traditionally protected speech, like political or religious speech. Commercial speech is a lesser form of speech, generally entitled to less protection; in fact, <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/447/case.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">until 1978,</a> commercial speech was not protected under the First Amendment at all. The Supreme Court has subsequently explained that the “<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/626/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">extension of First Amendment protection to commercial speech is justified principally by the value to consumers of the information such speech provides</a>,” not any inherent constitutional rights of manufacturers. As a consequence, laws regarding commercial speech do not receive strict scrutiny review, instead courts apply lesser burdens on governments in such circumstances.Indeed, the crux of Vermont’s GE labeling litigation has been whether an intermediate form of scrutiny should apply instead of rational basis review, not whether strict scrutiny should apply. The district court in the GE labeling litigation <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/vermont-decision_81793.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">held that</a> the lowest level of judicial review, rational basis review, was the proper standard for laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Tellingly, industry has not even argued that content-based review or strict scrutiny should apply to the Court of Appeals.The second major doctrinal point is the difference between a speechprohibition, like the sign postings in Reed, and a speech disclosure, like product labeling. This is also entirely absent from the Forbes piece. In speech doctrine there are material differences between disclosure requirements and prohibitions, with prohibitions having more 1st Amendment protection, for obvious reasons: any interests affected by a disclosure are substantially weaker than those suppressed, particularly in the commercial speech context, where the whole point of the constitutional protection is the value to consumers that speech provides.  Thus a company’s interests in “not providing any particular factual information” are merely “<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/626/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">minimal</a>.” Balanced against that are the many substantial reasons in favor of labeling discussed above—health, environment, and preventing consumer deception and confusion—all of which courts have long held to be substantial governmental interests for purposes of mandated product disclosures.In short, it is difficult to imagine that forty years of commercial speech precedent would be implicitly overturned by a non-commercial speech case, without the Court even mentioning the sea-change it was making. There is not a single case in which a court has found a commercial disclosure, like a product label, to be “content based” and thus subject to strict scrutiny. Based on the position presented by the Forbes piece, all kinds of commercial product labeling requirements would be potentially be struck down, because all factual disclosure requirements require specific content. However, that <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/vermont-decision_81793.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">doesn’t mean they are “content-based”</a> for purposes of strict scrutiny, and Reed does not say otherwise. It is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court would hide such an elephant in such a mouse hole.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>A shocking <a href="http://www.gmofreeusa.org/food-testing/gerber-lil-crunchies/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; line-height: 25.2px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">new report</a> released Tuesday by the organization GMO Free USA found that Gerber’s food product known as “Graduates Lil’ Crunchies” contain <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=roundup" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; line-height: 25.2px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Roundup</a> Ready corn—a type of <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/food-agriculture/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; line-height: 25.2px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">genetically-modified</a> corn that actually produces insecticides.</div><div>According to GMO Free USA:<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px;">“We sent a package of Gerber Graduates Lil’ Crunchies Veggie Dip Baked Whole Grain Corn Snack to a certified lab to test for the presence of GMO material. The quantitative PCR test verified, by DNA analysis, that 100 percent of the corn in the Lil’ Crunchies Veggie Dip was GMO. All of the corn has been genetically-engineered to be herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) and the corn contained DNA sequences known to be present in Bt insecticide-producing GMO corn.”</blockquote>PCR is short for polymerase chain reaction, which is a method of analyzing genetic material.The organization adds that Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn “produces insecticidal toxins from inside every cell of the plant.” In other words, these pesticides cannot be washed off the plant. Little testing has ever been done on Bt corn’s capacity to continue producing insecticides once eaten, but studies suggest that it might.According to research published in the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17356802" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology</a>, scientists found that the genetically-modified corn was linked to liver and kidney damage in animals.In an in vitro study on human cells published in the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22337346" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">Journal of Applied Toxicology</a>, scientists found that the corn may be toxic to human cells. In this study, the researchers found that Roundup killed cells or tissues or caused the cells to kill themselves from 50 parts per million, which the scientists indicate is “far below agricultural dilutions” used in the growing of the genetically-modified corn.Further research in the <a href="http://www.academia.edu/3405345/Histopathological_Changes_in_Some_Organs_of_Male_Rats_Fed_on_Genetically_Modified_Corn_Ajeeb_YG" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">Journal of American Science</a> confirmed the liver and kidney damage found in other studies and also found that animals fed a partial diet of genetically-modified corn had male reproductive organ damage, spleen damage and damage to the intestines. The scientists added that “the risk of genetically modified crops cannot be ignored and deserves further investigation.”While scientists continue to recommend further testing, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have all allowed Bt corn to be commercialized without any human safety tests. The same is true of the respective Canadian agencies Health Canada, Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.Industry continues to cite the genetically-modified corn as safe, claiming that it is broken down before or during consumption. Yet, Canadian research by scientists at the University of Sherbrooke, Quebec, published a study in the medical journal <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">Reproductive Toxicology</a> that found GMO proteins circulating in the bodies of non-pregnant women, pregnant women and the blood supply to fetuses.YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE<a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/15/fast-food-chains-antibiotic-use/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">America’s Largest Fast Food Chains Earn Failing Grade for Antibiotic Use</a><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/12/scientists-conspire-monsanto-gmos/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">Monsanto’s Tobacco Files: University Scientists Caught Conspiring With Biotech Industry to Manipulate Public Opinion on GMOs</a><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/08/california-becomes-first-state-to-label-monsantos-roundup-as-a-carcinogen/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">California Becomes First State to Label Monsanto’s Roundup as a Carcinogen</a></div><div>
</div><div></div><div><div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr" lang="en" style="direction: ltr; line-height: 19.2px;">The history of events and the quotes below are adapted from Andy Rowell's book, Don't Worry, It's Safe to Eat, Earthscan, 2003, <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Special:BookSources/1853839329" class="internal mw-magiclink-isbn" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">ISBN 1853839329</a>.On 10 August 1998 the GM debate changed forever with the broadcast of a programme on British TV about GM food safety featuring a brief but revealing interview with Dr Arpad Pusztai about his research into GM food safety. Dr Pusztai told of his findings on the ill effects of GM potatoes on laboratory rats. He was subsequently gagged and suspended by his institute, the <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Rowett_Research_Institute" title="Rowett Research Institute" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Rowett Research Institute</a> in Scotland, his research team was disbanded, and his research data was confiscated. He was subjected to a campaign of vilification and misrepresentation by several pro-GM scientific bodies and pro-GM lobbyists, in an attempt to discredit him and his research.The story began three years earlier. That's when the UK government's Scottish Office commissioned a three-year multi-centre research programme into the safety of GM food under the coordination of Dr Arpad Pusztai. At that time there was not a single publication in a peer-reviewed journal on the safety of GM food.Dr Pusztai, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, was an eminent scientist. He was the world's leading expert on the plant proteins known as lectins. He had published three books and over 270 scientific studies.He and his team fought off competition from 28 other research organisations from across Europe to be awarded the GBP1.6 million contract by the Scottish Office. The project methodology was also reviewed and passed by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) - the UK government's main funding body for the biological sciences.The research involved feeding GM potatoes to rats and monitoring physiological changes. By late 1997 preliminary results from the rat-feeding experiments were showing totally unexpected and worrying changes in the size and weight of the rat's body organs. Liver and heart sizes were getting smaller, and so was the brain. There were also indications that the rats' immune systems were weakening.Dr Pusztai was interviewed for a programme about GM food being made by Granada TV's World in Action. The filming took place in late June 1998 with the agreement of the director of the Rowett Institute, Professor <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Philip_James&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Philip James (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Philip James</a>, and in the presence of the Rowett Institute's press officer. The World in Action interview was broadcast on the evening of Monday 10 August 1998.Later that evening Professor James congratulated Dr Pusztai on his TV appearance, commenting on "how well Arpad had handled the questions". The next day a further press release from the Rowett noted that 'a range of carefully controlled studies underlie the basis of Dr Pusztai's concerns'. However, reportedly following two calls to the Rowett from the Prime Minister's Office, the Government, the <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Royal_Society" title="Royal Society" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Royal Society</a> and the Rowett launched a vitriolic campaign to sack, silence and ridicule Dr Pusztai.He was accused of unprofessional conduct because his work had not been peer-reviewed. However, his research subsequently passed peer-review after being reviewed by a larger than usual panel of scientists and was published (see below). Many people also take the view that in circumstances where research is giving rise to serious concerns that may need to be addressed sooner rather than later, it is acceptable for scientists to act as whistle blowers and draw attention to the problems their research is uncovering even prior to peer-reviewed publication.The Government criticised the methodology of Pusztai's research despite the fact that this had been approved in advance by its own <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Biotechnology_and_Biological_Sciences_Research_Council" title="Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council</a>. Neither the Government nor any other official body has ever repeated or refined Dr Pusztai's experiments to test the validity of his results.The Royal Society and its leading Fellows were key players in the attacks on Dr Pusztai from the time he went public with doubts about the safety of GM foods. In February 1999, for instance, nineteen Fellows of the Royal Society condemned Pusztai, in all but name, in a letter published in the national press. Among the signatories was <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Peter_Lachmann" title="Peter Lachmann" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Peter Lachmann</a>, who played a key role in the attacks on Pusztai.Three months later in May 1999 the Royal Society published a partial 'peer review' of Pusztai's then unpublished research. This review was based not on a properly prepared paper, like that Pusztai and his collaborator Ewen submitted to The Lancet for peer-review, but on a far-from-complete internal report intended for use by Pusztai's research team at the Rowett Institute.Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, described the Royal Society review as 'a gesture of breathtaking impertinence to the Rowett Institute scientists who should be judged only on the full and final publication of their work.'The Royal Society's review was organised by members of a working group appointed by the Society in coordination with the Society's officers. The Royal Society claimed that anyone who had already commented on the Pusztai affair had been excluded from this decision making process in order to avoid bias. However, <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php?title=William_Hill&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="William Hill (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">William Hill</a>, <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Patrick_Bateson" title="Patrick Bateson" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Patrick Bateson</a>, <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Brian_Heap" title="Brian Heap" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Brian Heap</a> and <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Eric_Ash&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Eric Ash (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Eric Ash</a>, who were all involved, were all among the co-signatories of the letter condemning Pusztai that had been published in The Daily Telegraph back in February.In addition, four key people involved, including the Chair of the working group, <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Noreen_Murray" title="Noreen Murray" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Noreen Murray</a>, as well as Brian Heap, <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Rebecca_Bowden" title="Rebecca Bowden" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Rebecca Bowden</a> and Sir <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Aaron_Klug" title="Aaron Klug" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aaron Klug</a>, were all part of the earlier working group that had issued the Royal Society's 1998 report supporting GM foods.There were other issues of bias. For instance, William Hill, the chair of the Pusztai working group, was also the deputy chair of the <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Roslin_Institute&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Roslin Institute (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Roslin Institute</a>, famous for genetically modifying animals and for cloning Dolly the sheep. Roslin in turn had links to <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Geron_Biomed&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Geron Biomed (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Geron Biomed</a> for whom Lachmann consulted. Similarly, Noreen Murray was the wife of theco-founder of Europe's first biotechnology company, <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Biogen&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Biogen (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Biogen</a>.Undaunted by the Royal Society's attack on their unpublished work, Pusztai and his co-researcher, Prof Stanley Ewen, submitted their final paper on their experiments to The Lancet. It was sent to six reviewers, double the normal number, and a clear majority were in favour of its publication.However, prior to publication the Lancet's editor Richard Horton received a phone call from Peter Lachmann, the former Vice-President of the Royal Society. According to Horton, Lachmann called him "immoral" for publishing something he knew to be 'untrue'. Towards the end of the conversation Horton says Lachmann also told him that if he published Pusztai's paper, this would "have implications for his personal position" as editor.The Guardian broke the news of Horton being threatened in November 1999 in a front-page story. It quoted Horton saying that the Royal Society had acted like a Star Chamber over the Pusztai affair: "The Royal Society has absolutely no remit to conduct that sort of inquiry." Lachmann denied threatening Horton although he admitted making the phone call in order to discuss the pending publication.The Guardian also talked of a GM 'rebuttal unit' operating from within the Royal Society. According to the journalist Andy Rowell, who helped research The Guardian article, Rebecca Bowden, who had coordinated the Pusztai peer-review and who had worked for the Government's Biotechnology Unit before joining The Royal Society in 1998, admitted to the paper, 'We have an organization that filters the news out there. It's really an information exchange to keep an eye on what's happening and to know what the government is having problems about … its just so that I know who to put up.'The attacks on The Lancet editor and his decision to publish Pusztai's paper continued. Sir Aaron Klug, vigorously opposed the publication of Pusztai's research, saying it was fatally flawed in design because the protein content of the diets which control groups of rats were fed on was not the same as that of the other diets. Pusztai commented: 'In fact, the paper clearly states that ALL diets had the same protein content and were iso-energetic. I cannot assume that Sir Aaron is not sufficiently intelligent to read a simple statement as that, so the only conclusion I can come to is that he deliberately briefed the reporters with something that was untrue.'Richard Horton remained unbowed. 'Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai's research letter,' he wrote, 'was published on grounds of scientific merit, as well as public interest'. What Sir Aaron Klug from the Royal Society cannot 'defend is the reckless decision of the Royal Society to abandon the principles of due process in passing judgement on their work. To review and then publish criticism of these researchers' findings without publishing either their original data or their response was, at best, unfair and ill-judged'.The attacks continue unabated. Peter Lachmann's successor as Biological Secretary of the Royal Society, Patrick Bateson, told readers of the British Association's journal Science and Public Affairs that The Lancet had only published Pusztai's research 'in the face of objections by its statistically-competent referees' (June 2002, Mavericks are not always right). Bateson, presumably deliberately, inverts the fact that Pusztai's Lancet paper successfully came through a peer review process that was far more stringent than that applying to most published papers.In an article in The Independent, giving the Royal Society's views on why the public no longer trusts experts like themselves - 'Scientists blame media and fraud for fall in public trust' - Pusztai's work is categorised as 'fraud'. Pusztai's peer reviewers, we are told in the article, 'refused it for publication, citing numerous flaws in its methods - notably that the rats in the experiment had not been fed GM potatoes, but normal ones spiked with a toxin that GM potatoes might have made.' Almost every word of this is straight fabrication. There was no fraud. Rats were fed GM potatoes. The publication of Pusztai's Lancet paper was supported by a clear majority of its peer reviewers, etc. etc. It is particularly ironic that such a travesty should have been published in an article reporting the Royal Society's concerns about the reporting of science in the media.In February 2002 a new Royal Society report on GM crops was published as an update to the Society's September 1998 report on GM. The expert group which produced it was much more broadly based than in '98 and the report took a noticeably more cautious line. 'British Scientists Turn on GM Foods', ran The Guardian's headline on a report which included an admission 'that GM technology could lead to... unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional status of foods'.The expert group was chaired by Jim Smith, who had sat on the Society's Pusztai working group, and tucked away inside the report was a paragraph on Pusztai. Once again, it was designed to mislead.The first part of the paragraph read: 'In June 1999, the Royal Society published a report, review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes, in response to claims made by Dr Pusztai (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999). The report found that Dr Pusztai had produced no convincing evidence of adverse effects from GM potatoes on the growth of rats or their immune function.’The Royal Society report references the phrase 'claims made by Dr Pusztai' - claims it said it had reviewed - to the article published by Pusztai and Ewen in The Lancet in 1999. In fact, however, the Royal Society’s partial review of Pusztai's research was published months before The Lancet article appeared. The Royal Society thus conceals the fact that it had only ever reviewed part of Pusztai's data, condemning him ahead of publication of his actual paper.The 2002 report continued: 'It concluded that the only way to clarify Dr Pusztai's claims would be to refine his experimental design and carry out further studies to test clearly defined hypotheses focused on the specific effects reported by him. Such studies, on the results of feeding GM sweet peppers and GM tomatoes to rats, and GM soya to mice and rats, have now been completed and no adverse effects have been found (Gasson and Burke, 2001).'But the Gasson and Burke paper, to which these further feeding studies are referenced by the Society, was not a piece of primary research but an 'opinion' piece written by two pro-GM scientists, Mike Gasson and Derek Burke. Worse, one of t he two further studies mentioned had not even been published, except by way of summary, ie it had never been fully peer-reviewed. In other words, the Royal Society uses an unpublished and non-peer-reviewed study to attack Pusztai, two years after it had condemned him for speaking to the media prior to publishing his work in a peer-reviewed journal.In response to criticism, the Royal Society admitted that the work in question remained unpublished but said this was not a problem because 'it had been discussed at international scientific conferences'. By this definition, however, Pusztai's research would have been equally validated before the Society ever launched its partial review as it had been presented at an international conference prior to the Society's review.Andy Rowell, author of a book that deals extensively with the Royal Society's role in the Pusztai affair, writes, 'the fundamental flaw in the scientific establishment's response is not that they try and damn Pusztai with unpublished data, nor is it that they have overlooked published studies [supporting Pusztai's concerns], but that in 1999, everyone agreed that more work was needed. Three years later, that work remains to be undertaken... [A] scientific body, like The Royal Society, that allocates millions in research funds every year, could have funded a repeat of Pusztai's experiments.'Nobody ever has.<a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai#cite_note-0" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[1]</a><table id="toc" class="toc" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 5px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><tbody><tr><td><div id="toctitle" style="direction: ltr; text-align: center;"><h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border: none; width: auto; display: inline; background: none;">Contents</h2>  [<a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai#" class="internal" id="togglelink" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">hide</a>] </div><ul style="line-height: 1.5em; list-style-type: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai#Dr_Pusztai_on_the_10th_anniversary_of_GM_safety_scandal" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">1 Dr Pusztai on the 10th anniversary of GM safety scandal</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai#Biography" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2 Biography</a><ul style="line-height: 1.5em; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai#Resources" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.1 Resources</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai#Notes" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.2 Notes</a></li></ul></li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); width: auto; background: none;">Dr Pusztai on the 10th anniversary of GM safety scandal</h2>The following is an email of 10 August 2008 from Dr Pusztai to Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews of GMWatch, in which Dr Pusztai comments on the 10th anniversary of the television interview.<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">Dear Claire and Jonathan,</dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">I thought that I should write to you on the 10th anniversary of my 150 seconds of TV "fame" and tell you what I think now. It is very appropriate to write to you because you have provided the most comprehensive service to inform people about the shenanigans of the GM biotechnology industry and its advocates.</dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">On this anniversary I have to admit that, unfortunately, not much has changed since 1998. In one of the few sentences I said in my broadcast ten years ago, I asked for a credible GM testing protocol to be established that would be acceptable to the majority of scientists and to people in general. 10 years on we still haven't got one.Instead, in Europe we have an unelected EFSA GMO Panel with no clear responsibility to European consumers, which invariably underwrites the safety of whatever product the GM biotech industry is pushing onto us.</dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">All of us asked for independent, transparent and inclusive research into the safety of GM plants, and particularly those used in foods. There is not much sign of this either. There are still "many opinions but very few data"; less than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published describing the results of work relating to GM safety that could actually be regarded as being of an academic standard; and the majority of even these is from industry-supported labs. Instead we have the likes of Tony Trewavas and others writing unsupported claims for the safety of GM food and defaming people like Rachel Carson who can no longer defend herself; not that she needs to be defended from such nonentities.</dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">In normal times one would not pay much attention to such people desperately trying to be seen as the advocates of true science, but these are not normal times. The mostly engineered (GM engineered) food crisis gives the GM biotech industry and its warriors an opportunity to come to the fore with claims that GM is the only way to save a hungry world; a claim not much supported by responsible bodies, such as the IAASTD. The advocates of GM also now think that they have found a chink in the armory of people's resolve that they can exploit by telling us that we would not be able to feed our animals without GM feedstuffs. In this way, they hope to bring in GM by the backdoor. Please remember that whatever our animals eat, we shall also get back indirectly. Rather ominously, there has been no work whatever to show the safety of the meat of GM-fed animals.</dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">We must not underestimate the financial and political clout of the GM biotechnology industry. Most of our politicians are committed to the successful introduction of GM foods. We must therefore use all means at our disposal to show people the shallowness of these claims by the industry and the lack of credible science behind them, and then trust to people's good sense, just as in 1998, to see through the falseness of the claims for the safety of untested GM foods.</dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">Let's hope that on the 20th anniversary I shall not have to write another warning letter about the dangers of untested GM foods!</dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">Best wishes to all</dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">Arpad Pusztai</dd></dl><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); width: auto; background: none;">Biography</h2>Dr Pusztai has a PhD from the University of London in biochemistry and physiology, and is former senior scientist at the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland. Dr Pusztai was dismissed from the Rowett Research Institute after he went public with his research on GM potatoes in 1998. The research was finally published in The Lancet in 1999.In 2005, Dr Pusztai was honoured with a whistleblower award from the Federation of German Scientists. Since his research was made public he has given close to 200 lectures across the world.<h3 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom-style: none; width: auto; background: none;">Resources</h3><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Interview_with_Arpad_Pusztai_on_his_experimental_findings_on_GM_potatoes" style="text-decoration-line: none; padding-right: 13px; background: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaaoaaaakcayaaacnms="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAoAAAAKCAYAAACNMs" aaaagxrfwhrtb2z0d2fyzqbbzg9izsbjbwfnzvjlywr5ccllpaaaafzjrefuef59z4ejadeiq1f36k7u5e7zkxeuqpacj3wk7unokvxvk9khnqh7by9hbdydhnxgjprlqflo4m2ggfyjhhjq8v4agfrgpqx3jtjqgbofmchga="AAAAGXRFWHRTb2Z0d2FyZQBBZG9iZSBJbWFnZVJlYWR5ccllPAAAAFZJREFUeF59z4EJADEIQ1F36k7u5E7ZKXeUQPACJ3wK7UNokVxVk9kHnQH7bY9hbDyDhNXgjpRLqFlo4M2GgfyJHhjq8V4agfrgPQX3JtJQGbofmCHgA" nakks="nAKks" jajfaaaaaelftksuqmcc="JAjFAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC" no-repeat="no-repeat" xmlns:data="data">Interview</a> with Dr Arpad Pusztai about his experimental findings on GM potatoes and the subsequent political fallout.<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18101.cfm" style="text-decoration-line: none; padding-right: 13px; background: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaaoaaaakcayaaacnms="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAoAAAAKCAYAAACNMs" aaaagxrfwhrtb2z0d2fyzqbbzg9izsbjbwfnzvjlywr5ccllpaaaafzjrefuef59z4ejadeiq1f36k7u5e7zkxeuqpacj3wk7unokvxvk9khnqh7by9hbdydhnxgjprlqflo4m2ggfyjhhjq8v4agfrgpqx3jtjqgbofmchga="AAAAGXRFWHRTb2Z0d2FyZQBBZG9iZSBJbWFnZVJlYWR5ccllPAAAAFZJREFUeF59z4EJADEIQ1F36k7u5E7ZKXeUQPACJ3wK7UNokVxVk9kHnQH7bY9hbDyDhNXgjpRLqFlo4M2GgfyJHhjq8V4agfrgPQX3JtJQGbofmCHgA" nakks="nAKks" jajfaaaaaelftksuqmcc="JAjFAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC" no-repeat="no-repeat" xmlns:data="data">Arpad Pusztai and the Risks of Genetic Engineering</a>, interview with Arpad Pusztai by Ken Roseboro, The Organic and Non-GMO Report, June 2009<h3 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom-style: none; width: auto; background: none;">Notes</h3><ol class="references" style="line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li id="cite_note-0" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai#cite_ref-0" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">↑</a> Andy Rowell, Don't Worry: Its Safe To Eat, Earthscan, 2003, <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Special:BookSources/1853839329" class="internal mw-magiclink-isbn" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">ISBN 1853839329</a>. See also: <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=113" style="text-decoration-line: none; padding-right: 13px; background: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaaoaaaakcayaaacnms="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAoAAAAKCAYAAACNMs" aaaagxrfwhrtb2z0d2fyzqbbzg9izsbjbwfnzvjlywr5ccllpaaaafzjrefuef59z4ejadeiq1f36k7u5e7zkxeuqpacj3wk7unokvxvk9khnqh7by9hbdydhnxgjprlqflo4m2ggfyjhhjq8v4agfrgpqx3jtjqgbofmchga="AAAAGXRFWHRTb2Z0d2FyZQBBZG9iZSBJbWFnZVJlYWR5ccllPAAAAFZJREFUeF59z4EJADEIQ1F36k7u5E7ZKXeUQPACJ3wK7UNokVxVk9kHnQH7bY9hbDyDhNXgjpRLqFlo4M2GgfyJHhjq8V4agfrgPQX3JtJQGbofmCHgA" nakks="nAKks" jajfaaaaaelftksuqmcc="JAjFAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC" no-repeat="no-repeat" xmlns:data="data">http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=113</a></li></ol></div><div id="catlinks" class="catlinks" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 5px; margin-top: 1em; clear: both; line-height: 19.2px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><div id="mw-normal-catlinks" class="mw-normal-catlinks"><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Categories</a>: <ul style="line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;"><li style="list-style: none;">
</li><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left-style: none; padding: 0px 0.5em 0px 0.25em; zoom: 1;"><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Category:GM" title="Category:GM" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">GM</a></li> <li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0px 0.5em; zoom: 1;"><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Category:Corporate_Science_(GM)" title="Category:Corporate Science (GM)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Corporate Science (GM)</a></li></ul></div></div></div><div>==</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></li></ul></div>