Fwd: Good News, Bad News & Noteworthy Information

[Guest guest]

Tue, 17 Jun 2003 02:22:50 -0700

 

News Update from The Campaign

Good News, Bad News & Noteworthy Information

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

We have some good news to report on an international level, some bad

news to report from the United Kingdom and an executive summary of a

report that does a great job explaining the problems with genetically

engineered foods.

 

First, the good news.

 

CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY RATIFIED

 

The nation of Palau has become the 50th nation to ratify the Cartagena

Protocol on Biosafety. With this 50th nation milestone reached, the treaty

goes into effect in 90 days, which happens to be September 11th.

 

This treaty allows nations to bar the import of genetically engineered seeds,

microbes, animals or crops. The United States opposed this treaty even

though 130 other nations agreed with it.

 

The first article below from The New York Times titled " Trade Pact on

Gene-Altered Goods to Take Effect in 90 Days " will provide more details.

 

Now, the bad news.

 

MEACHER OUT AS BRITISH ENVIRONMENTAL MINISTER

 

British Environmental Minister, Michael Meacher, has resigned apparently

under pressure to do so by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Meacher has been

quite outspoken in his concerns about genetically engineered foods. He

was often in disagreement with Tony Blair who is a promoter of

genetically engineered foods.

 

We hate to see Meacher go because he was a voice for sanity in the push

to force untested genetically engineered foods on the public in the

United Kingdom.

 

The second article posted below from The London Observer titled

" Test 'Frankenstein food' on humans to assess risks, urges Meacher "

will provide more details. As Meacher states in the article: " 'The health

impact has had very little attention, but it is an amazing fact - an

arresting and sobering fact - that there have been no human feeding

trials. "

 

THE CASE FOR A GM-FREE SUSTAINABLE WORLD

 

The last item posted below is a executive summary of a report titled

" The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World " produced by The Institute of

Science in Society.

 

The next time someone asks you what proof there is that genetically

engineered foods are not safe, the 13 reasons contained in this document

will help you make your case.

 

The Campaign has reformatted the 13 reasons in the executive summary and

turned it into a handy 2-page PDF document. Here is a link to the PDF version:

http://www.thecampaign.org/gmfree.pdf

 

Craig Winters

Executive Director

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

 

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

Tel: 425-771-4049

Fax: 603-825-5841

E-mail: label

Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org

 

Mission Statement: " To create a national grassroots consumer campaign

for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass

legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered

foods in the United States. "

 

***************************************************************

 

Trade Pact on Gene-Altered Goods to Take Effect in 90 Days

 

The New York Times

June 14, 2003

 

By ANDREW POLLACK

 

A new global treaty that imposes restrictions on exports of genetically

modified seeds, animals and crops is set to take effect, injecting a new

element into already heated international disputes over agricultural

biotechnology.

 

The treaty, known as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, was agreed

upon by more than 130 nations in January 2000 but could not take effect

until formally ratified by 50 nations. The 50th, Palau, just gave its

endorsement, so the protocol will go into effect in 90 days, on Sept.

11, the United Nations Environment Program said yesterday.

 

The treaty allows countries to bar imports of genetically engineered

seeds, microbes, animals or crops that they deem a threat to their

environments. It also requires international shipments of genetically

engineered grains to be labeled.

 

The United States reluctantly agreed to the treaty in 2000 after intense

negotiations pitting it and a handful of other crop-exporting nations

against everyone else. While Washington has not ratified the protocol,

American exporters to countries that are parties to the agreement will

have to abide by the rules, a senior State Department official said.

 

This official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the effect

of the treaty would depend on the rules for carrying it out, which have

not been written yet. He and others said that many countries were

already putting into place their own rules regulating imports or

requiring labeling of genetically modified products, making the treaty

less significant than it otherwise might have been.

 

The United States recently filed suit at the World Trade Organization

challenging the European Union's de facto moratorium on approval of new

genetically modified crops, arguing it is not based on sound science.

The new treaty contains language that could bolster Europe's case, at

least morally. It allows countries to bar imports of genetically

modified products even if there is not enough information to prove

scientifically that the products are dangerous.

 

Recognizing a potential conflict with W.T.O. rules, the framers of the

biosafety treaty were careful to state that it neither supersedes nor is

subordinate to other agreements.

 

L. Val Giddings, vice president for food and agriculture of the

Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group, said the new treaty

would have little effect over all and none on Washington's case against

Europe. " There's no way you can possibly read it or construe it that

would allow a trumping of W.T.O. obligations, " he said.

 

Kristin Dawkins, vice president of the Institute for Agriculture and

Trade Policy, a nonprofit group in Minneapolis that opposes genetically

modified foods, said the treaty bolstered opponents of biotechnology

because it establishes that genetically modified foods should be treated

differently from other foods.

 

***************************************************************

 

Test 'Frankenstein food' on humans to assess risks, urges Meacher

 

Kamal Ahmed, political editor

Sunday June 15, 2003

The Observer

 

Trials on humans to test the health risks of GM crops should be carried

out over the next decade, according to the former Minister who had

responsibility for the issue.

 

Michael Meacher, the Environment Minister who until his resignation on

Friday led the Government's policy on GM crops, said last night that

without the tests the public could never be sure that GM crops were

safe.

 

His intervention into the fraught debate on the future of what some call

'Frankenstein foods' is one of the most important in the public debate

on the issue which was launched by the Government earlier this month.

 

While in government, Meacher was well known for his expertise on the

crops. The Government is set to make a decision in the autumn about

whether to allow the commercial planting of GM crops across Britain.

 

Supporters say that the use of GM crops will reduce the need for

pesticides and will lead to greater yields to help feed poorer

countries.

 

But Meacher revealed that as yet no 'human feeding trials' have taken

place, making it impossible to decide whether there was a risk to human

health or not.

 

The Observer revealed earlier this month that the British Medical

Association is likely to launch a review of its assessment of the

dangers of GM crops to human health.

 

The organisation is likely to soften its stance on the risk to human

health after Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA's head of science and

ethics, said she had seen no evidence of a risk.

 

Meacher said: 'The health impact has had very little attention, but it

is an amazing fact - an arresting and sobering fact - that there have

been no human feeding trials.'

 

Meacher, who quit the Government as part Tony Blair's reshuffle last

week, said that human trials similar to those used to test new drugs

should be introduced.

 

'If you really wanted to know the impact on human beings shouldn't there

be human tests?' he said.

 

'I am not against GM crops, I just believe we should be cautious,' he

said.

 

***************************************************************

 

The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World

Executive Summary

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ispr-summary.php

 

Why GM Free?

1. GM crops failed to deliver promised benefits

 

The consistent finding from independent research and on-farm surveys

since 1999 is that GM crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits

of significantly increasing yields or reducing herbicide and pesticide

use. GM crops have cost the United States an estimated $12 billion in

farm subsidies, lost sales and product recalls due to transgenic

contamination. Massive failures in Bt cotton of up to 100% were reported

in India.

 

Biotech corporations have suffered rapid decline since 2000, and

investment advisors forecast no future for the agricultural sector.

Meanwhile worldwide resistance to GM has reached a climax in 2002 when

Zambia refused GM maize in food aid despite the threat of famine.

 

2. GM crops posing escalating problems on the farm

 

The instability of transgenic lines has plagued the industry from the

beginning, and this may be responsible for a string of major crop

failures. A review in 1994 stated, " While there are some examples of

plants which show stable expression of a transgene these may prove to be

the exceptions to the rule. In an informal survey of over 30 companies

involved in the commercialisation of transgenic crop plants….almost all

of the respondents indicated that they had observed some level of

transgene inaction. Many respondents indicated that most cases of

transgene inactivation never reach the literature. "

 

Triple herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape volunteers that have combined

transgenic and non-transgenic traits are now widespread in Canada.

Similar multiple herbicide-tolerant volunteers and weeds have emerged in

the United States. In the United States, glyphosate-tolerant weeds are

plaguing GM cotton and soya fields, and atrazine, one of the most toxic

herbicides, has had to be used with glufosinate-tolerant GM maize.

 

Bt biopesticide traits are simultaneously threatening to create

superweeds and Bt- resistant pests.

 

3. Extensive transgenic contamination unavoidable

 

Extensive transgenic contamination has occurred in maize landraces

growing in remote regions in Mexico despite an official moratorium that

has been in place since 1998. High levels of contamination have since

been found in Canada. In a test of 33 certified seed stocks, 32 were

found contaminated.

 

New research shows that transgenic pollen, wind-blown and deposited

elsewhere, or fallen directly to the ground, is a major source of

transgenic contamination. Contamination is generally acknowledged to be

unavoidable, hence there can be no co-existence of transgenic and

non-transgenic crops.

 

4. GM crops not safe

 

Contrary to the claims of proponents, GM crops have not been proven

safe. The regulatory framework was fatally flawed from the start. It was

based on an anti-precautionary approach designed to expedite product

approval at the expense of safety considerations. The principle of

‘substantial equivalence’, on which risk assessment is based, is

intended to be vague and ill-defined, thereby giving companies complete

licence in claiming transgenic products ‘substantially equivalent’ to

non-transgenic products, and hence ‘safe’.

 

5. GM food raises serious safety concerns

 

There have been very few credible studies on GM food safety.

Nevertheless, the available findings already give cause for concern. In

the still only systematic investigation on GM food ever carried out in

the world, ‘growth factor-like’ effects were found in the stomach and

small intestine of young rats that were not fully accounted for by the

transgene product, and were hence attributable to the transgenic process

or the transgenic construct, and may hence be general to all GM food.

There have been at least two other, more limited, studies that also

raised serious safety concerns.

 

6. Dangerous gene products are incorporated into crops

 

Bt proteins, incorporated into 25% of all transgenic crops worldwide,

have been found harmful to a range of non-target insects. Some of them

are also potent immunogens and allergens. A team of scientists have

cautioned against releasing Bt crops for human use.

 

Food crops are increasingly used to produce pharmaceuticals and drugs,

including cytokines known to suppress the immune system, induce sickness

and central nervous system toxicity; interferon alpha, reported to cause

dementia, neurotoxicity and mood and cognitive side effects; vaccines;

and viral sequences such as the ‘spike’ protein gene of the pig

coronavirus, in the same family as the SARS virus linked to the current

epidemic. The glycoprotein gene gp120 of the AIDS virus HIV-1,

incorporated into GM maize as a ‘cheap, edible oral vaccine’, serves as

yet another biological time-bomb, as it can interfere with the immune

system and recombine with viruses and bacteria to generate new and

unpredictable pathogens.

 

7. Terminator crops spread male sterility

 

Crops engineered with ‘suicide’ genes for male sterility have been

promoted as a means of ‘containing’, i.e., preventing, the spread of

transgenes. In reality, the hybrid crops sold to farmers spread both

male sterile suicide genes as well herbicide tolerance genes via pollen.

 

 

8. Broad-spectrum herbicides highly toxic to humans and other species

 

Glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate are used with the herbicide-tolerant

transgenic crops that currently account for 75% of all transgenic crops

worldwide. Both are systemic metabolic poisons expected to have a wide

range of harmful effects, and these have been confirmed.

 

Glufosinate ammonium is linked to neurological, respiratory,

gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities, and birth defects in

humans and mammals. It is toxic to butterflies and a number of

beneficial insects, also to the larvae of clams and oysters, Daphnia and

some freshwater fish, especially the rainbow trout. It inhibits

beneficial soil bacteria and fungi, especially those that fix nitrogen.

 

Glyphosate is the most frequent cause of complaints and poisoning in the

UK. Disturbances of many body functions have been reported after

exposures at normal use levels.

 

Glyphosate exposure nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous

abortion, and children born to users of glyphosate had elevated

neurobehavioral defects. Glyphosate caused retarded development of the

foetal skeleton in laboratory rats. Glyphosate inhibits the synthesis of

steroids, and is genotoxic in mammals, fish and frogs. Field dose

exposure of earthworms caused at least 50 percent mortality and

significant intestinal damage among surviving worms. Roundup caused cell

division dysfunction that may be linked to human cancers.

 

The known effects of both glufosinate and glyphosate are sufficiently

serious for all further uses of the herbicides to be halted.

 

9. Genetic engineering creates super-viruses

 

By far the most insidious dangers of genetic engineering are inherent to

the process itself, which greatly enhances the scope and probability of

horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creating

viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics. This was highlighted,

in 2001, by the ‘accidental’ creation of a killer mouse virus in the

course of an apparently innocent genetic engineering experiment.

 

Newer techniques, such as DNA shuffling are allowing geneticists to

create in a matter of minutes in the laboratory millions of recombinant

viruses that have never existed in billions of years of evolution.

Disease-causing viruses and bacteria and their genetic material are the

predominant materials and tools for genetic engineering, as much as for

the intentional creation of bio-weapons.

 

10. Transgenic DNA in food taken up by bacteria in human gut

 

There is already experimental evidence that transgenic DNA from plants

has been taken up by bacteria in the soil and in the gut of human

volunteers. Antibiotic resistance marker genes can spread from

transgenic food to pathogenic bacteria, making infections very difficult

to treat.

 

11. Transgenic DNA and cancer

 

Transgenic DNA is known to survive digestion in the gut and to jump into

the genome of mammalian cells, raising the possibility for triggering

cancer.

 

The possibility cannot be excluded that feeding GM products such as

maize to animals also carries risks, not just for the animals but also

for human beings consuming the animal products.

 

12. CaMV 35S promoter increases horizontal gene transfer

 

Evidence suggests that transgenic constructs with the CaMV 35S promoter

might be especially unstable and prone to horizontal gene transfer and

recombination, with all the attendant hazards: gene mutations due to

random insertion, cancer, reactivation of dormant viruses and generation

of new viruses. This promoter is present in most GM crops being grown

commercially today.

 

13. A history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific

evidence

 

There has been a history of misrepresentation and suppression of

scientific evidence, especially on horizontal gene transfer. Key

experiments failed to be performed, or were performed badly and then

misrepresented. Many experiments were not followed up, including

investigations on whether the CaMV 35S promoter is responsible for the

‘growth-factor-like’ effects observed in young rats fed GM potatoes.

 

In conclusion, GM crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits and

are posing escalating problems on the farm. Transgenic contamination is

now widely acknowledged to be unavoidable, and hence there can be no

co-existence of GM and non-GM agriculture. Most important of all, GM

crops have not been proven safe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence

has emerged to raise serious safety concerns, that if ignored could

result in irreversible damage to health and the environment. GM crops

should be firmly rejected now.

 

Why Sustainable Agriculture?

1. Higher productivity and yields, especially in the Third World

 

Some 8.98 million farmers have adopted sustainable agriculture practices

on 28.92 million hectares in Asia, Latin America and Africa. Reliable

data from 89 projects show higher productivity and yields: 50-100%

increase in yield for rainfed crops, and 5-10% for irrigated crops. Top

successes include Burkina Faso, which turned a cereal deficit of 644 kg

per year to an annual surplus of 153 kg; Ethiopia, where 12 500

households enjoyed 60% increase in crop yields; and Honduras and

Guatemala, where 45 000 families increased yields from 400-600 kg/ha to

2 000-2 500 kg/ha.

 

Long-term studies in industrialised countries show yields for organic

comparable to conventional agriculture, and sometimes higher.

 

2. Better soils

 

Sustainable agricultural practices tend to reduce soil erosion, as well

as improve soil physical structure and water-holding capacity, which are

crucial in averting crop failures during periods of drought.

 

Soil fertility is maintained or increased by various sustainable

agriculture practices. Studies show that soil organic matter and

nitrogen levels are higher in organic than in conventional fields.

 

Biological activity has also been found to be higher in organic soils.

There are more earthworms, arthropods, mycorrhizal and other fungi, and

micro-organisms, all of which are beneficial for nutrient recycling and

suppression of disease.

 

3. Cleaner environment

 

There is little or no polluting chemical-input with sustainable

agriculture. Moreover, research suggests that less nitrate and

phosphorus are leached to groundwater from organic soils.

 

Better water infiltration rates are found in organic systems. Therefore,

they are less prone to erosion and less likely to contribute to water

pollution from surface runoff.

 

4. Reduced pesticides and no increase in pests

 

Organic farming prohibits routine pesticide application. Integrated pest

management has cut the number of pesticide sprays in Vietnam from 3.4 to

one per season, in Sri Lanka from 2.9 to 0.5 per season, and in

Indonesia from 2.9 to 1.1 per season.

 

Research showed no increase in crop losses due to pest damage, despite

the withdrawal of synthetic insecticides in Californian tomato

production.

 

Pest control is achievable without pesticides, reversing crop losses, as

for example, by using ‘trap crops’ to attract stem borer, a major pest

in East Africa. Other benefits of avoiding pesticides arise from

utilising the complex inter-relationships between species in an

ecosystem.

 

5. Supporting biodiversity and using diversity

 

Sustainable agriculture promotes agricultural biodiversity, which is

crucial for food security and rural livelihoods. Organic farming can

also support much greater biodiversity, benefiting species that have

significantly declined.

 

Biodiverse systems are more productive than monocultures. Integrated

farming systems in Cuba are 1.45 to 2.82 times more productive than

monocultures. Thousands of Chinese rice farmers have doubled yields and

nearly eliminated the most devastating disease simply by mixed planting

of two varieties.

 

Soil biodiversity is enhanced by organic practices, bringing beneficial

effects such as recovery and rehabilitation of degraded soils, improved

soil structure and water infiltration.

 

6. Environmentally and economically sustainable

 

Research on apple production systems ranked the organic system first in

environmental and economic sustainability, the integrated system second

and the conventional system last. Organic apples were most profitable

due to price premiums, quicker investment return and fast recovery of

costs.

 

A Europe-wide study showed that organic farming performs better than

conventional farming in the majority of environmental indicators. A

review by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

(FAO) concluded that well-managed organic agriculture leads to more

favourable conditions at all environmental levels.

 

7. Ameliorating climate change by reducing direct & indirect energy use

 

Organic agriculture uses energy much more efficiently and greatly

reduces CO2 emissions compared with conventional agriculture, both with

respect to direct energy consumption in fuel and oil and indirect

consumption in synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

 

Sustainable agriculture restores soil organic matter content, increasing

carbon sequestration below ground, thereby recovering an important

carbon sink. Organic systems have shown significant ability to absorb

and retain carbon, raising the possibility that sustainable agriculture

practices can help reduce the impact of global warming.

 

Organic agriculture is likely to emit less nitrous dioxide (N2O),

another important greenhouse gas and also a cause of stratospheric ozone

depletion.

 

8. Efficient, profitable production

 

Any yield reduction in organic agriculture is more than offset by

ecological and efficiency gains. Research has shown that the organic

approach can be commercially viable in the long-term, producing more

food per unit of energy or resources.

 

Data show that smaller farms produce far more per unit area than the

larger farms characteristic of conventional farming. Though the yield

per unit area of one crop may be lower on a small farm than on a large

monoculture, the total output per unit area, often composed of more than

a dozen crops and various animal products, can be far higher.

 

Production costs for organic farming are often lower than for

conventional farming, bringing equivalent or higher net returns even

without organic price premiums. When price premiums are factored in,

organic systems are almost always more profitable.

 

9. Improved food security and benefits to local communities

 

A review of sustainable agriculture projects in developing countries

showed that average food production per household increased by 1.71

tonnes per year (up 73%) for 4.42 million farmers on 3.58 million

hectares, bringing food security and health benefits to local

communities.

 

Increasing agricultural productivity has been shown to also increase

food supplies and raise incomes, thereby reducing poverty, increasing

access to food, reducing malnutrition and improving health and

livelihoods.

 

Sustainable agricultural approaches draw extensively on traditional and

indigenous knowledge, and place emphasis on the farmers’ experience and

innovation. This thereby utilises appropriate, low-cost and readily

available local resources as well as improves farmers’ status and

autonomy, enhancing social and cultural relations within local

communities.

 

Local means of sale and distribution can generate more money for the

local economy. For every £1 spent at an organic box scheme from Cusgarne

Organics (UK), £2.59 is generated for the local economy; but for every

£1 spent at a supermarket, only £1.40 is generated for the local

economy.

 

10. Better food quality for health

 

Organic food is safer, as organic farming prohibits routine pesticide

and herbicide use, so harmful chemical residues are rarely found.

 

Organic production also bans the use of artificial food additives such

as hydrogenated fats, phosphoric acid, aspartame and monosodium

glutamate, which have been linked to health problems as diverse as heart

disease, osteoporosis, migraines and hyperactivity.

 

Studies have shown that, on average, organic food has higher vitamin C,

higher mineral levels and higher plant phenolics – plant compounds that

can fight cancer and heart disease, and combat age-related neurological

dysfunctions – and significantly less nitrates, a toxic compound.

 

Sustainable agricultural practices have proven beneficial in all aspects

relevant to health and the environment. In addition, they bring food

security and social and cultural well-being to local communities

everywhere. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive global shift to

all forms of sustainable agriculture.

 

***************************************************************

 

If you would like to comment on this News Update, you can do so at the

forum section of our web site at: http://www.thecampaign.org/forums

 

***************************************************************

 

 

 

---------

 

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!