GMO2
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">new node 9/15 see GMO</font></div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">agribizgmo, prop37</font></div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">2 tags fail roy GMOnsanto</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">bak 5/20 </font><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">Rowell,</span></div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://theconversation.com/genetically-modified-mosquitoes-could-be-released-in-florida-and-texas-beginning-this-summer-silver-bullet-or-jumping-the-gun-139710">https://theconversation.com/genetically-modified-mosquitoes-could-be-released-in-florida-and-texas-beginning-this-summer-silver-bullet-or-jumping-the-gun-139710</a></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://usrtk.org/bill-gates/radical-menu/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://usrtk.org/bill-gates/radical-menu/</a></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">no lnx many</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>Bill Gates’ radical menu for food systems: ultra-processed foods, patents, monocrops</b></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Posted: May 26, 2021 by Stacy Malkan</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If Bill Gates has his way, the food in our future will little resemble what’s on our plates today. Gates and his agribusiness industry partners are proposing to transform our food and how it is produced.</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">To the techno-food industrialists, hunger and climate change are problems to be solved with data and engineering. The core ingredients of their revolutionary plan: genetic engineering — and patenting — of everything from seeds and food animals, to microbes in the soil, to the processes we use to make food. Local food cultures and traditional diets could fade away as food production moves indoors to labs that cultivate fake meat and ultra-processed foods.</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Gates says rich countries should shift entirely to synthetic beef. </b>And he has the intellectual property rights to sell them. As a food that can help fix the climate, Gates touts the Impossible Burger, a plant-based patty made from genetically engineered soy and textured with engineered yeast. Its manufacturer, the Gates-funded Impossible Foods, has two dozen patents and more than 100 patents pending to artificially replicate cheese, beef and chicken and permeate these products with manufactured flavors, scents and textures.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Ginkgo Bioworks, a Gates-backed start-up that makes “custom organisms,” just went public in a $17.5 billion deal. The company uses its “cell programming” technology to genetically engineer flavors and scents into commercial strains of engineered yeast and bacteria to create “natural” ingredients, including vitamins, amino acids, enzymes and flavors for ultra-processed foods.</span> According to its investor presentation, Ginkgo plans to create up to 20,000 engineered “cell programs” (it now has five) for food products and many other uses. Axios reports that the company plans to charge customers to use its “biological platform” like Amazon charges for its data center, and will take royalties like apps in the Apple Store. Ginkgo’s customers, the investor pitch makes clear, are not consumers or farmers, but rather the world’s largest chemical, food and pharmaceutical companies.</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If techno-food products are not high on most consumers’ shopping lists, this is a menu investors can get behind. The market for genetically engineered products has the potential to reach <b>$2-4 trillion in the next 20 years</b>. And Bill and Melinda Gates are positioned to reap the rewards. The Gates back “a multitude of agrifood tech startups,” reports AgFunder News, either through private investment vehicles or through the Gates Foundation Trust, which funds the foundation’s charitable activities.</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Gates and the tech start-ups pitch their products as solutions for our most challenging environmental and social issues. But are they really?</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Doubling down on monocultures</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Gates’ “winning strategy for food and farming,” according to a Fortune magazine article by Shawn Tully, “is finding ways for farmers to produce more corn and soybeans on every acre … while substantially lowering carbon emissions.” Gates believes that “genetically modified seeds and chemical herbicides, in the right doses – and not land-intensive organic farming – are crucial to curbing carbon emissions.”</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Since 2006, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has spent over $5 billion on efforts totransform African agriculture; its flagship program, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, works totransition farmers to high-input industrial agriculture and scale up markets for commercial seeds and agrichemicals. Gates says these methods can boost production and lift farmers out of poverty.</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Many critics, including African faith leaders and hundreds of civil society groups around the world, say the foundation’s agricultural development strategies are failing to deliver on promises and benefitting multinational corporations over small farmers and communities in Africa. The foundation did not respond to our requests for comment.</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Gates has influenced the direction of agriculture to benefit the corporates,” said Million Belay, coordinator of Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), a coalition of 50 Africa-based groups. “His foundation has contributed hugely in weakening our seed, biosafety and agrochemical related regulations … it will take years to undo what they have done.”</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Gates also influences how governments and academic institutions think about the future of agriculture in Africa, Belay said. “The narrative now is you need to use agrichemicals, high-yield varieties, GMOs and a host of other farm management techniques to feed yourself,” he said. “It will also take years to convince our elites the future is agroecology. As one of the most rich and powerful people on the planet, the doors of our governments are open (to Gates) while it is ajar for African citizens. He has to be called out and has to change direction.”</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Leading experts in food security and nutrition are calling for a paradigm shift away from green revolution-style industrial agriculture and toward agroecology, which promotes biodiversity instead of monocultures, integrates animals to rebuild soils, and advocates for political and economic reforms to address inequities and social divisions. Diversified agroecological systems are more resilient, they say, and have a greater capacity to recover from disturbances including extreme weather events, pests and disease.</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Recent science suggests that chemical-intensive industrial agriculture is a key driver of climate change, soil erosion and the worldwide decline of insects. </b>Corn and soy monocultures are especially problematic; they deplete the soil and rely on synthetic fertilizers that emit nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere. These are problems Bill Gates is hoping technology can fix.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">A climate solution?</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Fortune describes Gates’ plans to intensify corn and soy production as a “pivotal campaign in the war against global warming.” How so? <b>Syngenta, the world’s second largest agrichemical company, is “deploying big data, gene editing, DNA analysis, and other groundbreaking technologies in pursuit of growing bumper harvests while lowering CO2<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">.”</span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Bayer, the leading chemical and seed firm, is making a similar pitch,</span> and claims its new sustainability technologies will “empower 100 million smallholder farmers around the world.”</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large;"><b style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">For 30 years, agrichemical companies promised</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"> GMOs could feed the poor and help small farmers, but it hasn’t yet worked out that way.</span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Most GMO crops in the ground today areengineered to survive weed-killing chemicals or kill insects. While these crops provided short-term benefits to farmers, they provided no benefits to consumers, nor did they deliver on promises to boost yields, but they did increase herbicide use. Evidence now indicates the crops are failing as weeds and bugs evolve around the technology.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As a solution to meet the climate crisis, and enable “sustainable intensification” of industrial agriculture, Gates and Bayer point to experimental projects to genetically engineer microbes to fix nitrogen to plants. “If these approaches work,” Gates writes in his climate book, “they’ll dramatically reduce the need for fertilizer and all the emissions it’s responsible for.” In 2017, Ginkgo Bioworks teamed up with Bayer to launch JoynBio, a microbe company that is working to create self-fertilizing plants.</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This, too, is a promise Bayer has made before.As far back as 1897, Bayer promoted a product that could reportedly assimilate atmospheric nitrogen, according to Mark Finlay, a history professor at Armstrong Atlantic State University. Bayer said its product could “conceivably make all agricultural lands permanently fertile,” Finlay wrote in a 2015 book about the history of agriculture. “Although early results were disappointing, many popular press writers hailed the potential of this discovery.”</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">GMO 2.0: genome-editing</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Gates is an evangelist for genetically engineered foods. He predicts that “GMOs will end starvation in Africa” and GMOs can “end world hunger by 2030.” If the first generation of GMO crops failed to deliver on these hopes, Gates believes new genetic engineering methods will get us there.</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">With CRISPR-Cas9 and other “genome-editing” techniques, scientists can nowadd or delete strands of DNA, or turn genes on or off, to produce specific traits in plants or animals — as if writing computer code. Examples include mushrooms that are “edited” to resist browning, “terminator cattle” bred to father only male offspring, or harmless strains of E Coli converted to antioxidant factories.,,,</p><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/factor-gmo-fake-science-russia" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/factor-gmo-fake-science-russia</a></font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">REF BUZZ</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div><div><b>The World’s Largest GMO Study Was Launched By Russians In 2014. Then It Disappeared.</b></div><div>“The basic idea is to create doubts in people’s minds, whether about Big Agriculture, or chemtrails, or anything else.”</div><div>
</div><div>Dan Vergano</div><div>BuzzFeed News Reporter</div><div>
</div><div>Posted on June 1, 2018 at 8:11 am</div><div>Be one of the first to comment</div><div>
</div><div>Rob Dobi for BuzzFeed News</div><div>In late 2014, an obscure Russian group called a press conference in London to announce the launch of the “world’s largest international study” — a three-year, $25 million experiment of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.</div><div>
</div><div>In the Factor GMO project, the panelists explained, thousands of rats would eat genetically modified corn that had been grown with Roundup, a controversial weed killer. Scientists would then watch the animals for three years, round the clock, to see if they developed cancer or fertility problems.</div><div>
</div><div>ADVERTISEMENT</div><div>“We hope this will be the definitive study that will establish whether or not these chemicals and these GMO products are safe and effective,” Bruce Blumberg, a scientist at the University of California, Irvine, a longtime GMO critic and one of the three scientists originally on the project’s advisory board, told the crowd of reporters.</div><div>
</div><div>The event attracted wide news coverage in the British press, everyone from the Guardian to the Daily Mail. Then Blumberg flew home to California. And that’s the last he ever heard from the Russians.</div><div>
</div><div>"It is weird," Blumberg told BuzzFeed News.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Quest for Peace / YouTube / Via youtube.com</div><div>Bruce Blumberg</div><div>
</div><div>Now more than three years later, the Moscow-based Factor GMO is not answering emails from the press. Although the donation button is still active on its website, the effort hasn’t uttered a peep since 2015. So, how much money did it raise? Did scientists ever watch any rats?</div><div>
</div><div>Or was it all a ruse from the get-go, a grand Russian propaganda effort against GMOs and Western science?</div><div>
</div><div>"Factor GMO has many of the hallmark characteristics of Russian anti-GMO propaganda, though it gives itself a veneer of scientific objectivity," Iowa State sociologist Shawn Dorius told BuzzFeed News.</div><div>
</div><div>Russia, as it turns out, has pushed a lot of anti-GMO propaganda in this decade, the most recent a Russia Today documentary, The Peril on Your Plate. That’s partly because of the competition: Cheap GMO crops from the US could threaten Russia’s agricultural market, and particularly its recent boom in wheat exports.</div><div>
</div><div>But these messages serve another purpose, too: to sow distrust in Western innovations, whether agricultural science, fracking, or elections, said Nina Jankowicz, a scholar of Russian disinformation tactics. “The basic idea is to create doubts in people’s minds, whether about Big Agriculture, or chemtrails, or anything else.”</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>youtube.com</div><div>ADVERTISEMENT</div><div>The agricultural behemoth Monsanto began selling Roundup in 1974. Unlike other herbicides, it killed just about any kind of weed and was a runaway seller. By the mid-1990s, the company had genetically engineered crops to resist Roundup, meaning that farmers could spray it with abandon. Its use grew fifteenfold.</div><div>
</div><div>In the two decades since, a subindustry of scientific studies has investigated the safety of these genetically modified crops and Roundup’s main ingredient, a chemical called glyphosate.</div><div>
</div><div>The most notorious of this oeuvre was a 2012 report by the French scientist Gilles-Éric Séralini finding tumors in rats fed GM corn and exposed to glyphosate. The study was widely criticized for its media rollout — journalists were asked to sign strange confidentiality agreements — and its conclusions, which the European Food Safety Commision found “inadequately designed, analyzed, and reported.” The study was retracted in January 2014 and then republished in a separate journal, without any more review, in June 2014. It’s been argued over ever since, with much of the criticism focused on its small sample size of 600 animals.</div><div>
</div><div>Factor GMO was designed to scale up the effort, tracking 6,000 rats for three years and measuring any fertility or hormonal changes. The project’s press conference on Nov. 11, 2014, was organized by the Russian nongovernmental organization National Association for Genetic Safety (NAGS), which has a history of hostility to GMOs. The group had organized “flash mob” events for a 2014 “March Against Monsanto” in Moscow, for example.</div><div>
</div><div>The London meeting began with two presentations in Russian, one by the head of NAGS, Elena Sharoykina, who had already called for a 10-year global ban of these products, and the next by Oxana Sinitsyn, an environmental health scientist at the Russian Ministry of Health. (Neither responded to a request for comment, nor did the listed contacts for the study.)</div><div>
</div><div>“The study will take place at undisclosed locations in Russia and Western Europe.”</div><div>Blumberg, the UC Irvine scientist, opened the English language portion of the event. An expert in chemicals that disrupt hormones, he said he was joining Factor GMO’s advisory board because he was “frustrated” by past safety studies failing to answer questions about how glyphosate exposure might alter the germline, affecting children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, or even great-great-grandchildren. “This is very important to know whether these chemicals and these genetically modified organisms can have effects that are seen in those generations,” he said.</div><div>
</div><div>The presenters did not say exactly which scientists would conduct the study, or where it would be conducted. “The study will take place at undisclosed locations in Russia and Western Europe,” the Factor GMO website explains. “The exact locations of the study must be kept secret for security reasons as we want to avoid any outside interference.”</div><div>
</div><div>“That’s a great touch if you’re writing a script for a thriller, but not so great if you want to build a broad base of credibility and trust,” Nathanael Johnson of Grist noted a few months afterward, criticizing the “air of cloak-and-dagger paranoia” surrounding the effort.</div><div>
</div><div>At the time, Blumberg said he agreed to serve on the study’s review panel to replace his friend, prominent neuroscientist and herbicide critic Andrés Carrasco, who had unexpectedly died. “I wanted to help out for a friend,” he said, on what sounded like a good study. Aside from his travel, he didn’t receive any money for his involvement, he said. He did not know the actual study scientists or how much money was collected.</div><div>
</div><div>When asked what he thought about the Factor GMO website still collecting donations, Blumberg told BuzzFeed News by email: “What the FactorGMO people do or do not do is not really my concern.”</div><div>
</div><div>A decade ago, Russian researchers created potatoes that borrowed a gene (“kindly provided by Monsanto”) from a harmless bacteria to make the spuds resistant to beetles. The GMO potatoes were approved by the state. But after Vladimir Putin returned as president in 2012, Russia’s anti-GMO efforts kicked off.</div><div>
</div><div>At first, Russian biotechnologists noted, a lack of rules for approving more modern genetically engineered crops meant "cultivation and breeding of GMOs, for example in agriculture, is ruled out."</div><div>
</div><div>Then in 2015, Putin announced plans to make Russia the world’s biggest exporter of non-GMO food. In an address to the Russian parliament, he said: “We are not only able to feed ourselves taking into account our lands, water resources — Russia is able to become the largest world supplier of healthy, ecologically clean and high-quality food which the Western producers have long lost.” Russia banned GMOs completely a year later. (Europe has imposed stringent rules on GMOs since 2010.)</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>Sputnik</div><div>@SputnikInt</div><div>Protests against #GMO, toxic #pesticides erupt in several countries (PHOTO) https://t.co/OZirWejbW6</div><div>
</div><div>12:10 PM - 22 May 2018</div><div>Reply Retweet Favorite</div><div>By 2016, RT and Sputnik, the two main Kremlin-owned outlets producing stories in English, were preoccupied by — and strongly negative toward — GMOs, according to a March study conducted by Dorius of Iowa State.</div><div>
</div><div>His team scraped the websites of RT, Sputnik, CNN, Fox News, Breitbart, and Huffington Post to find all stories in that year that mentioned GMOs. They found that RT and Sputnik produced 53% of all English-language stories in the study. And their stories were overwhelmingly opposed to GMOs — unlike the US outlets, which produced a mix of anti, pro, and neutral stories on the topic.</div><div>
</div><div>“Russian state news gives substantial attention to anti-GMO tropes involving rats, fertility, cancer, and GMOs,” Dorius told BuzzFeed News.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>S. Dorius / GM Food & Crop / Via tandfonline.com</div><div>Study findings on news shares of GMO stories.</div><div>
</div><div>ADVERTISEMENT</div><div>The survey found that RT’s stories often contained scaremongering myths about genetic engineering (such as the headline “GMO mosquitoes could be cause of Zika outbreak, critics say”). “It is typically designed to look like legitimate news,” Dorius said.</div><div>
</div><div>In that way, Factor GMO — with its press conference theatrics — seems similar. “Factor GMO seems like a marketing campaign that fizzled,” Dorius said, its presentation intended to raise questions about all previous safety studies and findings.</div><div>
</div><div>Polling experts told BuzzFeed News that it’s difficult to know whether these Russian efforts have swayed US opinion about GMOs — particularly because so many Americans are already skeptical of this technology.</div><div>
</div><div>Pew Research Center polling from 2016 suggested that 39% in the US thought GMO foods were worse than others. About 1 in 6 people said they cared a lot about GMOs, and most of that group were opposed to them.</div><div>
</div><div>Overall, the US scientific consensus is that GMOs don’t appear to be dangerous, a US National Academy of Sciences report concluded in 2016. (The real risk from Roundup was that its ubiquity has led to resistant weeds.) And although glyphosate is less toxic than caffeine, scientists are still investigating it for any health effects, without turning up much.</div><div>
</div><div>Nevertheless, people in the US trust scientists on GMOs even less than they do on vaccines, evolution, nuclear power, evolution, or climate science, according to studies by Lawrence Hamilton of the University of New Hampshire. Unlike climate change or evolution, GMOs have not become a matter of Republican versus Democrats politics, Hamilton noted.</div><div>
</div><div>But the US fight over GMOs, which has so far played out mostly online and in courtrooms, is about to get political attention. In July, the US Department of Agriculture is supposed to release mandatory disclosure rules for genetically modified food, leaving the decision for the Trump administration on how to proceed.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>youtube.com</div><div>
</div><div>Factor GMO may have fizzled out because it didn’t get any public traction, and the organizers “just cut their losses,” said Jankowicz of the Wilson Center. (The project’s outdated website states that its funding was “sourced from around the world” and that “a high percentage of the total needed has been secured, allowing us to start the experimental phase in Spring 2015.”)</div><div>
</div><div>Alternatively, Jankowicz said, the nebulous status of the project might be intentional. As long as a Potemkin “largest international” study is perpetually in the offing, critics can say that questions still remain about the safety of GMOs. It serves as a model for a kind of fake science meant to inspire cynicism about new technologies and institutions in general, she said. “They get people doubting something, without having to do any work and without any follow-up.”</div><div>
</div><div>The nebulous status of the project might be intentional.</div><div>Blumberg said he has made no effort to contact Factor GMO since the 2014 news conference.</div><div>
</div><div>“I already have plenty on my plate,” he said. He’s one of the handful of US researchers concerned about glyphosate, part of a group that published a “statement of concern” claiming possible hormonal effects from the herbicide in 2016.</div><div>
</div><div>Blumberg pointed out that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has designated glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen,” a hotly contested designation amid a federal lawsuit brought by people who claim they developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma from Roundup. (IARC has reserved the same cancer risk distinction for “very hot beverages” and “wood dust.”) Another court case in California right now revolves around a fight between Monsanto and the state’s environmental regulator over placing a carcinogen designation on Roundup.</div><div>
</div><div>That’s all despite numerous scientific societies endorsing the National Academy of Sciences report, which found animals “were not harmed” and that the herbicide brought no cancer risk.</div><div>
</div><div>The Factor GMO study may have gone to seed if not for Mary Mangan, a biologist affiliated with the pro-GMO advocacy group Cornell Alliance for Science. In April, Mangan blogged about the disappearance of the project (titling her post “Science Vaporware, From Russia, With a Bad Smell”).</div><div>
</div><div>Blumberg told BuzzFeed News that Mangan and other critics of the Russian effort are apologists for the herbicide industry. He compared them to deniers of climate science or the dangers of smoking.</div><div>
</div><div>"I wish someone would do this study," he said.</div><div>
</div><div>Mangan — who says she isn’t funded by industry — actually agreed. “I would love to see the Factor GMO data,” she told BuzzFeed News. “Whatever Blumberg thinks of me, it still doesn't exist and seems pretty dodgy.” ●</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Dan Vergano</div><div>BuzzFeed News Reporter</div><div>
</div><div>Contact Dan Vergano at dan.vergano@buzzfeed.com.</div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">cited by harvard news blog (also punked chassy etc)</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">looks legit:</font></p><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;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops</font></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;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wilhelm Klümper,</font></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;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Matin Qaim</font></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;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629</font></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;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></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;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">but beware meta a: <a href="https://gmofreeusa.org/gmo-safety-meta-analysis-debunked/">https://gmofreeusa.org/gmo-safety-meta-analysis-debunked/</a>
</font><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></p><p><span style="text-decoration-line: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><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; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Promotion of GMO-Derived Impossible Burger at World’s Largest Natural Food Trade Show Denounced as Deceptive</font></a></span></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ew 419</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.8; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">From kitchen tables worldwide, you can hear a chorus of parents chastising their children with the same refrain: “Stop playing with your food.”</font></p><div class="p1_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.8; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><div class="p3_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.8; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><div class="p4_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.8; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><div class="p5_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.8; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How’re you gonna keep ’em down on the farm after they’ve seen … Angus?</font></p><div class="p6_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.8; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><div class="p7_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.8; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><div class="p8_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.8; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><div class="p9_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.8; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><div class="p10_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.8; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Deep in his digital brain, even Angus must know this is stupid.</font></p><div class="p11_12" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 17px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.8; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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>.</font></span></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em;"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></b></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><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></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em;"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">G<span style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">MO Potato Creator Now Fears Its Impact on Human Health</span></font></b></p><div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="js-scroll-trigger" data-target="body" data-triggers="render-rebelbar" data-toggle-class="with-floating-shares" data-loaded="true" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></span></font></p><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; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body-description"><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rommens' concerns about the GMO potato led him to write a book, <em>Pandora's Potatoes</em>, 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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I recently interviewed Caius Rommens about his work developing the GMO potato and the misgivings he now has about it.</font></p><p><strong><em><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Please describe your work developing GMO potatoes and your position at Simplot.</font></em></strong></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>Caius Rommens:</strong> 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.</font></p><p><em><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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?</font></strong></em></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>CR:</strong> 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.</font></p><p><em><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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?</font></strong></em></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>CR: </strong>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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><em>(A Monsanto GM corn variety, LY038, was found to have high concentrations of </em><em>alpha-aminoadipate, and an application for its approval in Europe in 2009 was withdrawn after regulators raised safety questions.)</em></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There is no data on the actual levels of alpha-aminoadipate in GM potatoes, but I believe that Simplot should carefully determine these levels.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p><strong><em><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In your book you write that the GMO potatoes don't eliminate bruising but just conceal it. Please explain.</font></em></strong></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>CR: </strong>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.</font></p><p><em><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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?</font></strong></em></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>CR: </strong>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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><em>The title of your book is </em>Pandora's Potatoes<em>. What led you to choose this title?</em></font></strong></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>CR: </strong>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.</font></p><p><em><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What do you think should be done with these GMO potatoes?</font></strong></em></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>CR: </strong>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.</font></p><p><em><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Do you think the problems you experienced in GMO potatoes will be similar in other GMO plants?</font></strong></em></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>CR: </strong>It is my experience that genetic engineers are biased and narrow-minded. They may not be able to critically assess their own creations.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></p></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><h1 class="widgetheadline h1" style="margin: 10px 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; cursor: pointer; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><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;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Potato Company Simplot Licenses DowDuPont’s Gene Editing Tech</font></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; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body-description"><div class="widgetbrief"><p style="margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Dan Nosowitz</font></p><p style="margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The 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.</font></p></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);"><span class="show-more js-expand"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Keep reading...</font></span></div></div></div></div><div><p class="print-title"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p class="print-title"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></p></div><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><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;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.alternet.org/food/whole-foods-fails-consumers-again-delaying-gmo-labeling</font></a></p><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></b></div><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p><p><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; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Mandatory Labels With Simple Disclosures Reduced Fears of GE Foods in Vermont</font></a></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">golden rice not certified b/c does nor work</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><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></font></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Andrew Kimbrell, returns to make the case that passing food labeling laws will spell the end of the GMO industry</font></span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ctr for food safety</font></span></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><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" style="margin: 0px; background: url(" 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">Proposed GMO Food Labeling Could Leave 100 Million Americans in the Dark</a><span style="" lucida="Lucida" grande="Grande" verdana="Verdana" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> see </span><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" style="margin: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" 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">GMO's</a><span style="" lucida="Lucida" grande="Grande" verdana="Verdana" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> 5/18.</span></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">[<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></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> Extensive new report shows GMO crops safe, but not always as beneficial as predicted]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">punked gurad?</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/05/gmcrops-india</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;" 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"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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; text-decoration-line: none !important;">GM</a> crops, according to a large scientific study.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;" 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"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;" 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"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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; text-decoration-line: none !important;">India</a>, stemming in part from the failure of many GM crop varieties."</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;" 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"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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; 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."</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;" 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"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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; 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.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px;" 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"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"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....</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.44em; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.44em; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/mexico-revokes-monsantos-permit-2512210671.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/mexico-revokes-monsantos-permit-2512210671.html</a></font></p><div class="headline-container" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 class="headline h1" style="margin: 10px; padding: 0px; position: relative; line-height: 31px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mexico Revokes Monsanto's Permit to Market GMO Soy in Seven States</font></h1></div><div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="margin: 1em 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.44em; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="js-scroll-trigger" data-target="body" data-triggers="render-rebelbar" data-toggle-class="with-floating-shares" data-loaded="true" style="margin-top: 10px;" /></font></p><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; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body-description"><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mexico's agriculture sanitation authority SENASICA revoked the permit—a decision that the St. Louis-based seed giant called unjustified.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citing a SENASICA document, Mexican newspaper Reforma reported that the permit was revoked after authorities detected Monsanto's GMO soy in unauthorized areas.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The permit revocation applies to the states of Tamaulipas, San Luis Potosi, Veracruz, Chiapas, Campeche, Yucatan and Quintana Roo.</font></p><p><span style="background-color: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></span></p><p><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">RECOMMENDED</font></strong></p><p><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-dicamba-warnings-2508117163.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Monsanto Ignored Warnings About Dicamba Risks as Far Back as 2011</font></a></p><p><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-nemastrike-skin-2505418910.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Monsanto Pulls Launch of New Pesticide After Skin Rash Complaints</font></a></p><p><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/corporations-global-food-2504858599.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Report: Global Food Chain Increasingly Threatened by Corporate Consolidation</font></a></p></div></div><p style="margin: 1em 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.44em; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What they’re really talking about is a promotional campaign for genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">There are two major flaws with this plan.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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?</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Second, the initiative will push forward “science-based” education. The question is: Whose science are they using?</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We’re at a turning point in history where we can reverse the harm that we’ve done to our communities, farmland, and environment.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://movetoamend.org/29-states-just-banned-laws-about-seeds">https://movetoamend.org/29-states-just-banned-laws-about-seeds</a></font></div><div><header style="margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 id="page-title" style="margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">29 States Just Banned Laws About Seeds</font></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" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2017-08-22T00:00:00-07:00"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">August 22, 2017</font></span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kristina Johnson</font></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source field-type-link-field field-label-hidden" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><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;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Mother Jones</font></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"><p style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“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.”</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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).</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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 </span><a href="http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/What_is_ALEC%3F" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">The Center for Media and Democracy</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">ALEC’s corporate members include the Koch brothers as well as some of the largest seed-chemical companies — <b>Monsanto, Bayer, and DuPont</b> — which want to make sure GMO bans, like those enacted in Jackson County, Oregon, and Boulder County, Colorado, don’t become a trend.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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 <b>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</b>, 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.)....</font></p></div></div></div></div></article></div></div></div></div></div></div><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p><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; word-wrap: break-word;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">Obama Expands Monsanto Doctrine By Signing DARK Act And Invalidating Vermont GMO Labeling Law</font></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;"><span class="timestampdate--published" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">08/09/2016 </font></span></div><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><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></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>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.</b></font></p><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;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.75rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p></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;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.75rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.”</font></p></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;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.75rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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. “</font></p></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;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.75rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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</font></p></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;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.75rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">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.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.75rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">....</font></p></blockquote></div><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">2/14</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-weight: bold; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;">USA Food Fight over GMOs Intensifies</span><br style="" /><br style="" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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 </span><a target="blank" href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_29171.cfm%20" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); 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><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, 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 </span><a target="blank" href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28550.cfm%20" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;">illegally laundering</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> 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. </span><br style="" /><br style="" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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. </span><a target="blank" href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28369.cfm%20" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); 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><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> 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.</span><br style="" /><br style="" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-weight: bold; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;">Frontline Battles in Oregon</span><br style="" /><br style="" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In Oregon,</span></font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> 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.” <br style="" /><br style="" />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.<br style="" /><br style="" />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. <br style="" /><br style="" />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. </font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><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></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...</font></p><p style="margin: 10px 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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; word-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; word-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.</font></p><p style="margin: 10px 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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; word-wrap: break-word;">beta agonists</a>.</font></p><p style="margin: 10px 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p style="margin: 10px 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p style="margin: 10px 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p style="margin: 10px 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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:</font></p><p style="margin: 10px 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"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."</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/genetically-engineered-moths-2463104186.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/genetically-engineered-moths-2463104186.html</a></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><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></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Some </font><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>The 'Monsanto science treatment'</strong></font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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."</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>Double standards in science and transparency</strong></font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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!"</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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. </font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>The 'Africa needs GMOs' narrative</strong></font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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. </font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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>.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Yet the solution doesn’t even warrant a mention in "Food Evolution."</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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."</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>Did Monsanto have anything to do with 'Food Evolution'?</strong></font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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."</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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."</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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."</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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."</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>Sneak peek behind the scenes</strong></font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Another 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."</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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."</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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."</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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. </font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>What is propaganda?</strong></font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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."</font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><em>This review originally appeared in <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/food-evolution-gmo-film-showcases-chemical-industry_us_5942b09ce4b024b7e0df49db">Huffington Post</a>.</em></font></p><p dir="ltr"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Watch the trailer for "Food Evolution":</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Judge to FDA: Agency Must Pull Aside Curtain on GE Salmon</b></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Feb. 11, 2017 05:53PM EST</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> Subscribe to EcoWatch</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> Earthjustice</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">By Jessica A. Knoblauch</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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."</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><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></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">no link</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>One 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.</b></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Now, a new study published in the Dec. 15 issue of the journal PLOS ONE gives more credence to the anti-GMO concern.</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>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. </b></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>A conflict of interest was determined if an author <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">declared </span>an affiliation to one of the biotech companies or received funding or payment from them.</b></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"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."</font></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This means that conflicts of interests are not only pervasive in GMO research, it could be leaving an impact.</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>However, the authors admitted their study had some limitations:</b></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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."</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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.</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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.</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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."</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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."</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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."</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><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></font></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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: none;">genetically engineered</a> (GE) crops and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides" style="text-decoration: none;">pesticide</a> use. Of significance to state and local communities throughout the U.S., the Ninth Circuit ruled that federal law—specifically,<b> the Plant Protection Act—does not prohibit states and counties from passing local laws to regulate and ban commercially-grown GE crops.</b></font></font></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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: none;">Center for Food Safety</a>, said.</font></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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."</font></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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: 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."</font></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>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.</b></font></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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: 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."</font></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>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</b>. 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</font></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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.</font></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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.<strong> </strong>"It is our responsibility to insure that our keiki have access to clean air, clean water and to 'āina that sustains them."</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><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" style="margin: 0px; background: url(" 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">The biotech industry has failed to deliver on its promises for GMO crops.</a><span lucida="Lucida" grande="Grande" verdana="Verdana" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> 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</span></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><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></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">thom hartmann</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>DARK Act:</b></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">~ dark act</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">bs</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><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></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">--</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">mar 2016</font></font></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Defying 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.</font></font></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>The so-called <a href="http://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/EDW16221.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: 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> </b>(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: 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: 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.</font></font></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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: 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: 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: 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."</font></font></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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: 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."</font></font></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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: 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: 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.</font></font></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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: 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 lawmakers</span>consider this bill.</font></font></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) weighed in on the controversy Tuesday, tweeting:...</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><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>
</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>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.</b></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"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."</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In an article for the Huffington Post, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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:</span></font></font></font></p><blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></font></font></p></blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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. </font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">One of the largest purveyors of pro-GMO literature is the <b>Council for Biotechnology Information,</b> 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 <b>PR form Ketchum</b> (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.”</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">But
one of those experts, <b>Kevin Folta</b>, 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.</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.”</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>The same Ketchum currently leading the fight to
normalize GMOs previously spent six years working with Russian president
Vladimir Putin</b>. <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. </font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.”</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.”</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“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.”</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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. </font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“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>.</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“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
<b>big-ideas festivals.”</b></span></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Sustainability is hardly the first thing to come to mind when considering companies like Monsanto. As Modern Farmer notes,<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> “<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.”</span></font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.”</font></font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.”</font></font></font></p><p class="p1"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"[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." </font></font></font></p><p class="p1"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">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.</font></font></font></p><p class="p1"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><em>[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.]</em></font></font></font></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
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
</font></font></font><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></font></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.alternet.org/food/sanders-takes-stand-against-senate-bill-would-undermine-vermonts-new-gmo-labeling-law-video</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lesi<span style="line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">slators 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 </span><a href="http://www.justlabelit.org/dark-act/" style="text-decoration: none; line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Just Label It</a><span style="line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.</span></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/<b>2012</b>/10/gmo-climate-change-science</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"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<b> Keith Kloor in <em>Slate</em>.</b>
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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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 <em>Seed Magazine</em>, 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/"><em>Denialism</em></a><em>.</em> I plan to return to the theme of scientific consensus and GMOs soon, but to make a long story short, I'll quote my <em>Seed</em> piece:</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The consensus around climate change developed <em>in spite of</em> 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.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If such a pro-GMO consensus existed, surely we'd find it in the the<b>
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>),</b>
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<b> 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.</b> "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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><div id="node-body-break"><div class="billboard extended"><p class="post-continues post-continued-from-above norelated"><em><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></em></p></div></div><div id="node-body-bottom"><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Exhibit A is <a href="http://www.hoover.org/fellows/10000" target="_blank">Henry Miller,</a>
</span> 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 Nestl<span class="st">é</span>.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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>.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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 <em>Los Angeles Times</em> <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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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 <em>Orange County Register</em>
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:</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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></font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>He's hardly alone in his role as climate skeptic and GMO enthusiast.
Dennis T. Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute</b>, 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>.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<em><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This article has been revised. </font></em></p></div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see also 3rd world pushback 4/16</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">F<span style="line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">or 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.</span></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: 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: 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: 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.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: 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: 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.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: 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.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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. </font></p><div wibbitz="embed-main-player" style="line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="bio-new body_environment" style="width: 630px; font-style: italic; line-height: 22px; height: auto; border-top-width: 3px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(223, 223, 218); clear: both; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="author-bio"><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Andrew Kimbrell is the Founder and Executive Director of the <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/" style="text-decoration: none;">Center for Food Safety</a>.</font></p></div></div><p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/remarkable-triumph-democracy-over-corporate-power-gmo-labeling-has-finally-arrived-us"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://www.alternet.org/food/remarkable-triumph-democracy-over-corporate-power-gmo-labeling-has-finally-arrived-us</font></a></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/students-participate-one-first-human-feeding-trials-genetically-engineered-bananas"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://www.alternet.org/food/students-participate-one-first-human-feeding-trials-genetically-engineered-bananas</font></a></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A <span style="line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">recent </span><a href="http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/politics_and_administration/campus/article_8f46f490-d63c-11e5-a2d5-3fce1bbacef8.html" style="line-height: 32px; text-decoration: none;">controversy</a><span style="line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> 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 </span><a href="http://www.isutransgenicbanana.com/sign-the-petition-2/" style="line-height: 32px; text-decoration: none;">critical questions</a><span style="line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> 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.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The students also recently <a href="http://foodfirst.org/over-57000-express-concern-with-human-feeding-trials-of-gmo-bananas/" style="text-decoration: 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: 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....</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; 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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/judge-trade-group-hid-corporate-donors-to-defeat-food-labeling-initiative/" onclick="_gaTracker('send', 'event', 'outbound-article', 'http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/judge-trade-group-hid-corporate-donors-to-defeat-food-labeling-initiative/', 'The Seattle Times');" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">The Seattle Times</a>.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-s-enforcement-case-against-grocery-manufacturers-association" onclick="gaTracker('send', 'event', 'outbound-article', 'http://atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-s-enforcement-case-against-grocery-manufacturers-association', 'case');" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">case</a>,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><em style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">State v. Grocery Manufacturers Association</em>, was filed in October 2013 by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson against the powerful food industry group. According to a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/court-gma-unlawfully-hid-donors-identities-public" onclick="gaTracker('send', 'event', 'outbound-article', 'http://atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/court-gma-unlawfully-hid-donors-identities-public', 'news release');" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; 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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2013, the top 10 contributors to GMA’s Defense of Brands account and their contributions (as of Dec. 3, 2013) were:</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1. PepsiCo: $2.696 million<br style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />
- Nestle USA, Inc.: $1.751 million<br style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />
- The Coca-Cola Company: $1.742 million<br style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />
- General Mills: $996,000<br style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />
- ConAgra: $949,000<br style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />
- Campbell Soup: $441,000<br style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />
- The Hershey Company: $413,000<br style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />
- J.M. Smucker: $401,000<br style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />
- Kellogg: $369,000<br style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />
- Land O’Lakes: $332,000</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The 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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://fortune.com/2016/03/13/big-food-illegally-hid-funders-of-campaign-to-kill-gmo-labeling-effort-judge-rules/" onclick="gaTracker('send', 'event', 'outbound-article', 'http://fortune.com/2016/03/13/big-food-illegally-hid-funders-of-campaign-to-kill-gmo-labeling-effort-judge-rules/', 'Fortune');" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Fortune</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/court-gma-unlawfully-hid-donors-identities-public" onclick="gaTracker('send', 'event', 'outbound-article', 'http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/court-gma-unlawfully-hid-donors-identities-public', 'note');" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">note</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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.”</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
<div class="rve" data-content-width="" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25.2px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<p style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p>
</div>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25.2px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“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.”</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“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.”</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In response to the ruling, the GMA issued the following<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/gma-statement-on-washington-state-court-ruling/" onclick="_gaTracker('send', 'event', 'outbound-article', 'http://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/gma-statement-on-washington-state-court-ruling/', 'statement');" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">statement</a>:</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
<div class="rve" data-content-width="" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25.2px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<p style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p>
</div>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 25.2px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As EcoWatch<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/25/food-fight-label-gmos/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">reported</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; 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" onclick="_gaTracker('send', 'event', 'outbound-article', 'http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/us-usa-gmo-labeling-idUSKBN0GY09O20140903', 'spent millions');" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; 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: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Vermont passed its groundbreaking law</a> in May 2014 that requires the labeling of GMO food products in the state.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">hit the Senate floor</a> any day now.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; 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" onclick="gaTracker('send', 'event', 'download', '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: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; 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: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">require labeling</a> from going into effect.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“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/" onclick="_gaTracker('send', 'event', 'outbound-article', 'http://foodandwaterwatch.org/', 'Food & Water Watch');" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Food & Water Watch</a>,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/12/united-states-monsanto/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; 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.”</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p>
</div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
<a href="http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/">http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/</a>
<span>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.</span>
==
<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/29/monsanto-cut-jobs/">http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/29/monsanto-cut-jobs/</a>
==
</font></div>
<div><a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/08/brazil-fines-nestle-pepsi-gmos/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/08/brazil-fines-nestle-pepsi-gmos/</font></a></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==
<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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
==
</font></div>
<div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">GM crops: Battlefield</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Emily Waltz</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Download a PDF of this story</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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."</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The response we got — it went through the jugular.”</font></span></div>
<div><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Problem papers</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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."</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Critical mass</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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".</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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."</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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."</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Omitted study</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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."</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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".</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“When bad science is used to justify bad policies, we all lose.”</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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".</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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."</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Arbiters of the truth</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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."</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It is critical to assert the right of scientists to question each other's work.”</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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."</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Young people are not going into this field because they are discouraged by what they see.”</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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".</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pervasive spread</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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."</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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."</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"It toughened me up a lot," she says. "I'm not going to be intimidated." </font></div>
</div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">DARK act </font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-gmo-dark-act-cannot-survive-the-light/</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">pompeo</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>
<div>
<p style=" line-height: 23px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 10px; padding-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; background-color: rgb(250, 248, 247);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/reports/1413/genetically-engineered-food-labeling-laws-map" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: 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: none;">states introduced legislation</a> to require GE labeling in 2013 and 2014, with laws recently passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
</div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>
<div>
<p style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“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.”</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">GE salmon</a> and prevent its sale until such labeling is in effect.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">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: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“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.”</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; 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: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; 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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
</div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/03/china-clone-cows/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/03/china-clone-cows/</font></a></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">hackademics<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/28/sources-funded-monsanto/"> http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/28/sources-funded-monsanto/</a></font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>
<div><a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/fdas-approval-ge-salmon-based-bad-science-say-consumer-advocates"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://www.alternet.org/environment/fdas-approval-ge-salmon-based-bad-science-say-consumer-advocates</font></a></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>
<div><a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/09/monsanto-mexican-court-gmos"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/09/monsanto-mexican-court-gmos</font></a></div>
<div>
<p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">11/15</font>
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/david-and-goliath-illinois-farmer-takes-worlds-largest-agrochemical-company-over-gmo-corn"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://www.alternet.org/food/david-and-goliath-illinois-farmer-takes-worlds-largest-agrochemical-company-over-gmo-corn</font></a>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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. </font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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. </font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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...</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">fda approve salmon after bogus study outed</font></p>
</div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></div>
<div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[http://www.alternet.org/food/new-gmo-free-zone-will-protect-traditional-farmers-colorado New GMO-Free Zone Will Protect Traditional Farmers in Colorado]:</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The zone will help traditional and organic farmers avoid the risk of transgenic contamination from nearby GE crops, particularly GE corn. 11/15.</font></div>
</div>
<div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></div>
<div><a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/senates-first-biotech-hearing-decade-was-lopsided-pro-industry-affair"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://www.alternet.org/environment/senates-first-biotech-hearing-decade-was-lopsided-pro-industry-affair</font></a></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">C<span style="line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">entral 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. </span><span style="line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Senator Stabenow</span><span style="line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> 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 </span><a href="http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2015/04/vermont-wins-legal-challenge-to-its-ge-labeling-law/" style="line-height: 32px; text-decoration: none;">Vermont label law</a> <span style="line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">goes into effect in July 2016.</span></font></div><div><span style="line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div>
<p class="news_content" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">RELATED: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/monsanto-scandal-biotech-giant-solicited-academics-fight-their-pro-gmo-war" style="text-decoration: none;">How Monsanto Solicited Academics to Bolster Their Pro-GMO Propaganda — Using Taxpayer Dollars</a></font></strong>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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.</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> 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: none;">decline of monarch butterflies</a>.</span></font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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. </span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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 (</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act), but EPA </span><a href="http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2014/07/epa-denies-hazardous-pesticide-use-on-3-million-acres-of-texas-cotton-field/" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">denied the reques</a><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">t because it said that exposure to triazines, linked to hermaphroditism in frogs, “already show[s] unacceptable risk levels.”</span></font>
<strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">RELATED: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/gmos-safe-act-will-block-states-requiring-gmo-labeling" style="text-decoration: none;">Orwellian Nightmare: Congress May Block States from Requiring GMO Labeling</a></font></strong>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: 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: none;">series of studies in the journal <em>Weed Science</em></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: 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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: 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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.”</font></p>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>
</div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/canadian-government-slams-aquabountys-gmo-salmon-growth-claims"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://www.alternet.org/food/canadian-government-slams-aquabountys-gmo-salmon-growth-claims</font></a></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...<span style=" line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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 </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/business/26salmon.html" style=" line-height: 32px; text-decoration: none;">journalists</a><span style=" line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and even to financial regulators at the </span><a href="http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/food-water-watch-calls-sec-reject-gmo-salmon-stock-filings" style=" line-height: 32px; text-decoration: none;">Securities Exchange Commission.</a></font></div>
<p style=" margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But, according to a <a href="http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/Canadian_Environmental_Assessment_2015.pdf" style=" text-decoration: 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: none;">most studied fish in the world</a>.”</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></p>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>
<div><a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/gmo-labeling-undermined-bogus-legal-analysis"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://www.alternet.org/environment/gmo-labeling-undermined-bogus-legal-analysis</font></a></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div>
<p style=" margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> 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: none;">op-ed</a> published by Forbes last week, </font>
<span style=" line-height: 32px;"><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/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/09/16/supreme-court-free-speech-decision-clobbers-gmo-food-labeling-advocates-but-they-dont-know-it/</font></a></span>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">a pro-biotechnology <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Henry_I.Miller" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: 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: 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.</font>
<strong><em><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Genetically Engineered Foods</font></em></strong>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right now Americans in every <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/state-labeling-initiatives" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: 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: 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: 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: none;">declined to require labeling</a> for genetically engineered foods, leaving the public in the dark about whether the foods we buy are transgenic.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: none;">recognizes</a> that having thousands of processed foods produced with genetic engineering, yet unlabeled, is deceptive, or at best confusing, to consumers.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: none;">does <em>not</em> 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: 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: none;">accountability or traceability to link such foods to proliferating public health problems</a>.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: 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: 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: 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: none;">probably carcinogenic to humans</a>.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On the agricultural side, transgenic <a href="http://goo.gl/nkC52J" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">contamination</a> of traditional crops from<a href="http://goo.gl/tjBJEd" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">engineered crops</a> has caused U.S. farmers <a href="http://goo.gl/5Nc6Ub" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">billions</a> of dollars in <a href="http://goo.gl/ymErOa" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: 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: none;">proliferated</a> an <a href="http://goo.gl/BuxKR1" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">epidemic</a> of resistant “superweeds” now covering more than 60 million acres of U.S. farmland.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: 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: none;">“consensus”</a> that such foods <a href="http://goo.gl/5cEHpm" target="_blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">are safe</a>.</font>
<strong><em><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Labeling GE Foods</font></em></strong>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: none;">California</a> (<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_37,Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food%282012%29" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: 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: 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: 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: 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: none;">Oregon lost by 812 votes,<em>total</em></a>).</font>
<strong><em><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Industry’s All Out Assault on Democracy and Your Right to Know</font></em></strong>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Industry 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: 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: 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: 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: none;">argued for years</a>, concluding that<a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/vermont-decision_81793.pdf" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: 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: 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: 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: none;">briefing</a> over this summer and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals set to hear argument on October 8 in New York City.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: 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: 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: 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: 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: none;">Senate showdown</a>this fall.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: none;">independent studies</a>by Consumer Reports.</font>
<strong><em><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Commercial Speech and GE Labeling</font></em></strong>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The decision <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-502_9olb.pdf" target="_blank" style=" text-decoration: none;"><em>Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona</em></a><em>described in the Forbes article</em>received 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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: none;">even the laugh test</a>”), they disagreed with Justice Thomas’s broad language of when and how strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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 <em>Reed</em>, nor ever mentioned in the Forbes piece—is that<em>commercial speech</em>, like consumer product labeling, is fundamentally different than other forms of traditionally protected speech, like political or religious speech. Commercial speech is a <em>lesser form</em> 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: none;">until 1978,</a> commercial speech was not protected under the First Amendment <em>at all</em>. The Supreme Court has subsequently explained that the “<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/626/" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">extension of First Amendment protection to commercial speech is justified principally by the value to consumers of the information such speech provides</a>,” <em>not</em> any inherent constitutional rights of manufacturers. As a consequence, laws regarding commercial speech do <em>not</em> receive strict scrutiny review, instead courts apply lesser burdens on governments in such circumstances.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: 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 <em>not even argued that content-based review or strict scrutiny should apply</em> to the Court of Appeals.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The second major doctrinal point is the difference between a speech<em>prohibition</em>, like the sign postings in <em>Reed</em>, and a speech <em>disclosure</em>, 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 “<em>not</em> providing any particular factual information” are merely “<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/626/" target="_blank" style=" text-decoration: 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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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 <em>all factual disclosure requirements require specific content</em>. However, that <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/vermont-decision_81793.pdf" target="_blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">doesn’t mean they are “content-based”</a> for purposes of strict scrutiny, and <em>Reed</em> does not say otherwise. It is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court would hide such an elephant in such a mouse hole.</font></p>
</div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">A shocking </span><a href="http://www.gmofreeusa.org/food-testing/gerber-lil-crunchies/" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; line-height: 25.2px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">new report</a><span style=" line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> released Tuesday by the organization GMO Free USA found that Gerber’s food product known as “Graduates Lil’ Crunchies” contain </span><a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=roundup" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; line-height: 25.2px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Roundup</a><span style=" line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Ready corn—a type of </span><a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/food-agriculture/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; line-height: 25.2px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">genetically-modified</a><span style=" line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> corn that actually produces insecticides.</span></font></div>
<div>
<p style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to GMO Free USA:</font></p>
<blockquote style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<p style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“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.”</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">PCR is short for polymerase chain reaction, which is a method of analyzing genetic material.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The organization adds that Bt (<em style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Bacillus thuringiensis</em>) 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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to research published in the <em style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17356802" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology</a></em>, scientists found that the genetically-modified corn was linked to liver and kidney damage in animals.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In an in vitro study on human cells published in the <em style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22337346" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Journal of Applied Toxicology</a></em>, 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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Further research in the <em style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><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: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Journal of American Science</a></em> 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.”</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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 <em style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Reproductive Toxicology</a></em> that found GMO proteins circulating in the bodies of non-pregnant women, pregnant women and the blood supply to fetuses.</font>
<strong style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE</font></strong>
<span style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><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: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">America’s Largest Fast Food Chains Earn Failing Grade for Antibiotic Use</font></a></span>
<span style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><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: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Monsanto’s Tobacco Files: University Scientists Caught Conspiring With Biotech Industry to Manipulate Public Opinion on GMOs</font></a></span>
<span style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><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: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">California Becomes First State to Label Monsanto’s Roundup as a Carcinogen</font></a></span></p>
</div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>
<div>
<div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr" style=" direction: ltr; line-height: 19.2px;" lang="en">
<p style=" margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The history of events and the quotes below are adapted from </span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Andy Rowell's </span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">book, </span><i style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Don't Worry, It's Safe to Eat</i><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, Earthscan, 2003, </span><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Special:BookSources/1853839329" class="internal mw-magiclink-isbn" style=" text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">ISBN 1853839329</a><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.</span></font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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 <strong class="selflink">Arpad Pusztai</strong> 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: 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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Dr Pusztai, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh</b>, 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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: 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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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'</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">. 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: 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.</span></font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: 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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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.</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Among the signatories was <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Peter_Lachmann" title="Peter Lachmann" style=" text-decoration: 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.</span></font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.'</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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, </span><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: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">William Hill</a><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, </span><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Patrick_Bateson" title="Patrick Bateson" style=" text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Patrick Bateson</a><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, </span><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Brian_Heap" title="Brian Heap" style=" text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Brian Heap</a><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and </span><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: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Eric Ash</a><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, who were all involved, were all among the co-signatories of the letter condemning Pusztai that had been published in The</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Daily Telegraph </span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">back in February.</span></font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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: 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: none; background: none;">Rebecca Bowden</a> and Sir <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Aaron_Klug" title="Aaron Klug" style=" text-decoration: 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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">There were other issues of bias. For instance, William Hill, the chair of the Pusztai working group, was also the deputy chair of the </span><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: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Roslin Institute</a><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, famous for genetically modifying animals and for cloning Dolly the sheep. Roslin in turn had links to </span><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: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Geron Biomed</a><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> for whom Lachmann consulted. Similarly, Noreen Murray was the wife of the</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> co-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: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Biogen</a>.</span></font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Guardian also talked of a GM 'rebuttal unit' operating from within the Royal Society</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. 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.'</span></font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.'</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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'.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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'</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. 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.</span></font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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'.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.’</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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).'</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> pro-GM scientists, Mike Gasson and Derek Burke. </span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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.</span></font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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. </span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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.'</span></font>
<font style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">Nobody ever has.<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference"><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai#cite_note-0" style=" text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[1]</a></sup></font></p>
<table id="toc" class="toc" style=" border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; padding: 5px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><tbody><tr><td>
<div id="toctitle" style=" direction: ltr; text-align: center;">
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><h2 style=" margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border: none; width: auto; display: inline; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Contents</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></h2>
<span class="toctoggle"> [<a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai#" class="internal" id="togglelink" style=" text-decoration: none; background: none;">hide</a>] </span></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: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">1</span> <span class="toctext">Dr Pusztai on the 10th anniversary of GM safety scandal</span></font></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai#Biography" style=" text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="tocnumber">2</span> <span class="toctext">Biography</span></a>
</font><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: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">2.1</span> <span class="toctext">Resources</span></font></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: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">2.2</span> <span class="toctext">Notes</span></font></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-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); width: auto; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Dr_Pusztai_on_the_10th_anniversary_of_GM_safety_scandal"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr Pusztai on the 10th anniversary of GM safety scandal</font></span></h2>
<p style=" margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; line-height: 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
<dl style=" margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<dd style=" line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dear Claire and Jonathan,</font></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;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I thought that I should write to you on the</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> 10th anniversary of my 150 seconds of TV "fame</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">" 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.</span></font></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;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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. </span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Instead, in Europe we have an unelected EFSA GMO Panel with no clear responsibility to European consumers</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, which invariably underwrites the safety of whatever product the GM biotech industry is pushing onto us.</span></font></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;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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 </span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Tony Trewavas</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and others writing unsupported claims for the safety of GM food and </span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">defaming people like Rachel Carson who can no longer defend herself; not that she needs to be defended from such nonentities.</span></font></dd>
</dl>
<dl style=" margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<dd style=" line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></dd>
</dl>
<dl style=" margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<dd style=" line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></dd>
</dl>
<dl style=" margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<dd style=" line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Let's hope that on the 20th anniversary I shall not have to write another warning letter about the dangers of untested GM foods!</font></dd>
</dl>
<dl style=" margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<dd style=" line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Best wishes to all</font></dd>
<dd style=" line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Arpad Pusztai</font></dd>
</dl>
<h2 style=" font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); width: auto; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Biography"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Biography</font></span></h2>
<p style=" margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; line-height: 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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 <i>The Lancet</i> in 1999.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In 2005, Dr Pusztai was honoured with a whistleblower award from the Federation of German Scientists</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. Since his research was made public he has given close to 200 lectures across the world.</span></font></p>
<h3 style=" margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom-style: none; width: auto; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Resources"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Resources</font></span></h3>
<p style=" margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; line-height: 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><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: none; padding-right: 13px; background: url() 100% 50% no-repeat;">Interview</a> with Dr Arpad Pusztai about his experimental findings on GM potatoes and the subsequent political fallout.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18101.cfm" style=" text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: url() 100% 50% no-repeat;">Arpad Pusztai and the Risks of Genetic Engineering</a>, interview with Arpad Pusztai by Ken Roseboro, The Organic and Non-GMO Report, June 2009</font></p>
<h3 style=" margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom-style: none; width: auto; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Notes"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Notes</font></span></h3>
<ol class="references" style=" line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<li id="cite_note-0" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai#cite_ref-0" style=" text-decoration: none; background: none;">↑</a> <span class="reference-text">Andy Rowell, <i>Don't Worry: Its Safe To Eat</i>, Earthscan, 2003, <a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Special:BookSources/1853839329" class="internal mw-magiclink-isbn" style=" text-decoration: 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: none; padding-right: 13px; background: url() 100% 50% no-repeat;">http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=113</a></span></font></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"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://powerbase.info/index.php/Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories" style=" text-decoration: none; background: none;">Categories</a>:
</font><ul style=" line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font><li style=" list-style: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></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: none; background: none;">GM</a></li>
<li style=" margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: 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: none; background: none;">Corporate Science (GM)</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></li></ul><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">==</font></div></div></div>