Genetic Engineering

[Guest guest]

Greetings family,

My friend sent this to me and I thought some of us might find this info relevant.

love and light

pam

THE TRUE FOOD NETWORK NEWSLETTER > JANUARY 2005>> Happy New Year from all of us at the True Food Network! > In this issue:>> - Alfalfa Action Alert! URGENT!!!> - Help Stop GE Crops in California - Become a Regional Organizer!> - Sonoma County, California - next county to go GE-Free?> - Monsanto Fined $1.5 Million for International Bribery over GE crops> - Thank You True Food Network for Your Generous Donations!>> ***********************************************************************> Alfalfa Action Alert! Urgent!>> USDA / APHIS is currently deciding whether or not to approve the > commercialization of Monsanto's GE RoundUp Ready alfalfa. Please take amoment > today to send comments - they are due by Monday, January 24th!!!>> You can read the Alfalfa Background paper at:> http://www.truefoodnow.org/documents/alfalfa_backgrounder.pdf>> You can mail your comments at the address below, or email - make sureyour > subject line contains the docket number listed in this comment. Pleasecc: > info so we know how many comments have been sent.> ------>> January XX, 2005>> Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD> APHIS, Station 3C71> 4700 River Road Unit 118> Riverdale, MD 20737> http://www.regulations> Re: Comments Monsanto Roundup Ready Alfalfa> Docket #04-085-1>> To Whom It May Concern:>> I am a _________________ (e.g. True Food Network member, concernedconsumer, > parent, teacher, dairy farmer, rancher, beekeeper, horse breeder, cutflower > grower, conservationist, pet owner, etc.) opposed to the deregulation of > Monsantos herbicide tolerant alfalfa variety currently being consideredby the > USDA in the docket referenced above.I have a wide variety of concernsthat, as > yet, have not been fully evaluated by the USDA and other regulatoryagencies.>> Like its RR predecessors, Monsanto's RoundUp Ready GE alfalfa posesserious > risks, but it also poses some new and unique risks that must be fullyaddressed, > including a full environmental impact statement (EIS), before commercial > approval. >> RoundUp Ready alfalfa would be the first genetically engineered perennial > agronomic crop with the RR trait, and the dynamics of a RR perennial are > somewhat different from those of annual crops like corn andsoy,presenting > somewhat different risks. For annual crops, the time span for usingglyphosate > (RoundUp) is one growing season; for perennial crops, multipleapplications can > be made for several years (alfalfa is usually> grown for 3-5 years)(Doll, Jerry D. The Future of RoundUp Ready Alfalfa.> 2003. Proc. Wisconsin Fertilizer, AgLime, and Pest Management Conf. Vol.42), > resulting in an overall increase in herbicide usage. It is estimated thatin > California alone, this could result in as much as 200,000 pounds moreherbicides > a year(National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy. PlantBiotechnology: > Current and Potential Impact for Improving Pest Management in U.S.Agriculture > An Analysis of 40 Case Studies Herbicide Tolerant Alfalfa. June 2002. > Gianessi, Leonard P.; Silvers, Cressida S.; Sankula, Sujatha; Carpenter,Janet > E). >> The RoundUp Ready cropping strategy encourages excessive herbicide> application over a longer period of time during the growing season, whichcan > leadto leaching into the soil and groundwater and the absence of covercrops > (treated as weeds with RoundUp), which would deprive the soil of their > soil-building and nutrient stabilizing benefits (Pridham, Jaqueline. TheImpact > of RoundUpReady Alfalfa on Organic Systems. 2003). Alfalfa iscross-pollinated > by bees, creating the very real possibility of RR alfalfa crosspollinating with > neighboring conventional and organic alfalfa crops. For organic producersthis > could cost them their certification, as alfalfa is relied on not only asanimal > feed, which must be GE-free in order> to be used in an organic system, but also as a nitrogen-fixer in theirsoil. > Neither of these options are viable if GE alfalfa is present in> an organic producers fields. Alfalfa plays an integral role inreplenishing > nitrogen in the soil as green manure and maintaining soil> nutrient levels (Pridham, Jaqueline. The Impact of RoundUpReady> Alfalfa on Organic Systems. 2003). For both organic and conventionalgrowers > this contamination possibility poses incredible risks to theirlivelihoods as > well as our environment.>> The RoundUP Ready System in Alfalfa Production> Already, RR soy and corn are widespread in US acreage. Commercializing RR > alfalfa would hand over three of the top four US field crops to> Monsantos RR system. This possibility brings up many issues.>> Increased Herbicide Use> Already, there have been five-fold increases in glyphosate use in the USbecause > of the adoption of the RR system. Alfalfa will be no> exception. Given this rise in use, there are potentially significantimpacts on > biodiversityand human health due to increased levels of> toxic chemicals on our food. Glyphosate is generally believed to beimmobile in > soil as it readily binds to soil particles; however,> a recent study found that glyphosate can be readily released from soil > particles, and therefore may leach into water. Though glyphosate itselfis > believed to have a relatively low acute toxicity to mammals, preparationsof > glyphosate often include a surfactant that increases toxicity to fish andother > aquatic species. There are some indications that chronic> exposure to glyphosate can be harmful if administered at high doses overlong > periods of time (MacRae, Rod ; Penfound, Holly; Margulis, Charles.> Against the Grain: The Threat of Genetically Engineered> Wheat. Greenpeace. November 2002.). RoundUp can be toxic to fishdepending on > several factors including hardness of water, the age of the fish andwater > temperature. In some situations, concentrations as low as 10 parts permillion > can kill fish.>> Changes to Weed Populations and Impacts on Biodiversity> As RoundUP becomes the main herbicide used in RR crop systems, weedpopulations > tend to shift. As RoundUp use is increased and substituted> for other products, the result is a shift in what weed species survive.These > changes could ripple through the ecosystem as food sources for birds andinsects > change or disappear through this weed control program. In> addition, spray drift to borders and neighboring native vegetation cancause > damage to wild plants and flowers. This can also lead to harmful> effects on birds, insects and other animals that depend on thisvegetation for > food or shelter. There may also be impacts on soil biota due to> over-reliance on one herbicide. Researchers in Arkansas found thatglyphosate > has a negative effect on a nitrogen fixing bacteria that lives inassociation > with soybeans. Another recent study showed a higher incidence of a fungal > disease, Fusarium, on soybeans treated with Glyphosate. These suggestthat > increased glyphosate use may disrupt soil organism population dynamics.This can > have a large effect on the ecosystem because changing soil dynamicsusually > trigger changes in crop management, often leading to more fertilizers,changes > in crop rotation and more or different pesticide applications, these inturn > have larger impacts on the soil and ecosystem (MacRae, Rod ; Penfound,Holly; > Margulis, Charles. Against the Grain: The Threat of Genetically Engineered> Wheat. Greenpeace. November 2002.).>> RoundUp Resistant Weeds> With the increase in adoption of the RR system comes the increase of > RR-resistant weeds. After just 6 years of widespread planting, RR> crops may have doubled the number of glyphosate-resistant weeds thatdeveloped > in the previous 25 years (Canon, S. 2001. Weeds Developing Resistance toWidely > Used Herbicide, Some Say. The Star (Kansas City),> 21 August 2001.). Scientists have already documentedglyphosate-resistance in > many problem weeds. In 2001, Marestail (Horsegrass) was found to surviveeven 10 > times the recommended application rate of RoundUp. Waterhemp, Ryegrassand > Quackgrass have also presented signs of resistance. The number ofresistant > weeds is expected to increase, and as such will force farmers to useadditional, > and likely more toxic, herbicides to manage these resistant weeds.>> Alfalfa Poses Unique Risks> As alfalfa is used primarily for livestock feed, many questions arise asto how > such a change in diet could effect the livestock and the products> they produce. Alfalfa is used in feed for dairy cows because it is lowerin > fiber and higher in protein than any other single forage. Eighteen> pounds of alfalfa provides one-third of the fiber, over a third of thecrude > protein, one-fourth of the energy and half of the calcium required for ahigh > level of milk production (National Center for Food and AgriculturePolicy. Plant > Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact for Improving Pest Managementin > U.S. Agriculture An Analysis of 40> Case Studies Herbicide Tolerant Alfalfa. June 2002. Gianessi, LeonardP.; > Silvers, Cressida S.; Sankula, Sujatha; Carpenter, Janet E.). There are > currently studies underway examining the risks of transgenes from feedbeing > passed on to gut microflora in livestock a huge concern in the case of > alfalfa.Recent studies have also questioned whether geneticallyengineered crops > have the same chemical composition as their conventional counterparts.The > biotech industry has always claimed that the GE varieties aresubstantially > equivalent and that nothing but the gene they have introduced haschanged. But > scientists are beginning to see differences in GE and non-GE crops. A1999 > independent study analyzed the phytoestrogen concentrations in twovarieties of > genetically modified herbicide tolerant soybeans and their conventional > counterparts grown under similar conditions. An overall reduction in > phytoestrogen levels of 12-14 percent was observed in the geneticallyaltered > soybean strains(Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens> in Genetically Modified, Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans. Journal ofMedicinal Food > v.1, n. 4, 1jul99.Marc A. Lappi, Ph.D., Center for Ethics and Toxics,Gualala CA > E. Britt Bailey, M.A., Center for Ethics and Toxics, Gualala,> CA Chandra Childress, M.S., Childrens Hospital Medical Center,Cincinnati, OH > Kenneth D.R. Setchell, Ph.D., Childrens Hospital Medical Center,Cincinnati, > OH). Phytoestrogens, which include lignans and isoflavones areoestrogen-like > compounds which occur naturally in many plants and fungi and which are > biologically active in humans and animals. Soybeans are rich sources of > phytoestogens in the human diet and are currently believed to reduce therisk of > certain cancers, especially those which are hormone dependent such asbreast and > prostate. Such a change in nutritional value in GE alfalfa could greatly > diminish its value as animal feed.>> Another significant difference between forage and grain production isthat weed > control in alfalfa seldom results in higher forage yields as> compared to soy, corn or wheat. This is because weeds are usuallyharvested > along with the alfalfa for feed. In fact, overall forage yields may belower > when weeds are controlled and higher when they are not (Doll, Jerry D.The > Future of RoundUp Ready Alfalfa. 2003. Proc. Wisconsin Fertilizer,AgLime, and > Pest Management Conf. Vol. 42).>> In addition, While only 5% of US grown alfalfa is exported, 75% of thoseexports > go to Japan. If RR alfalfa is allowed on the market those exports couldbe lost. > The largest buyer in Japan has already stated they would not buy any USwheat if > GE wheat was commercialized due to concerns of contamination and lack of > segregation in our current agricultural> system. Alfalfa could likely face the same rejection.>> I believe Monsantos RoundUp Ready alfalfa poses serious ecological,agronomic > and health risks while offering little benefit to farmers and no> benefit to consumers. Commercializing RR alfalfa will benefit onlyMonsantos > corporate profits at the expense of consumers, farmers and theenvironment. As > such, I believe a full EIS is needed to fully evaluate the possibleimpacts > before commercial approval is considered.>> Thank you for taking my comments into consideration.>> Sincerely,>> NAME> ADDRESS>>> ***********************************************************************> Help Stop GE Crops in California!> Become a Regional Organizer> January, 2005>> Last year, Californian's for GE_Free Agriculture trained teams of peoplefrom 13 > counties in California to take local action to protect their communitiesagainst > the potential agricultural, ecological, economic, and health dangers ofGE > organisms. In the same year, three counties and one city passed local > initiatives to restrict the production of GE crops and other organisms intheir > regions.>> In order to send a strong message to politicians, the media and the > biotechnology industry about consumer and farmer opposition to GE, and toensure > that our local communities are protected from genetic contamination, wemust > continue to organize at the local level and network across California.>> It is Cal GE-Free's goal to increase the number of active GE-Free groupsto 20. > These groups will be locally autonomous, but connected to the Cal GE-Free > statewide network. We would like you to be one of these groups by forminga team > of 2 to 4 people to attend a Regional Organizer training, with the goalof > launching a local campaign.>> WHAT CAN YOU LOOK FORWARD TO DURING THE TRAINING?>> Occidental Arts and Ecology Center (www.oaec.org) will host thetrainings. On > their 80 acres of beautiful organic gardens, ponds and wilderness, youwill > enjoy a sustainable living experience, complete with delicious organicmeals, a > hot tub, sauna and swimming pond, and yurt dormitories or tentaccommodations.>> The trainings will cover a range of topics including:>> Issue briefings on a variety of topics including: state, national and > international updates, patents and farmers' rights, regulatory and legalissues, > and global resistance to GE. >> Skills development workshops on: media outreach, community mapping andpower > analysis, local campaign development, tactics and messages, meeting with > decision makers, farmer outreach, organizing and facilitating meetings, > democratic decision making methods and local fundraising. >> Your group will leave the training with a specific local campaign planand > timeline, plus the confidence and skills needed to make it happen!.>> We will provide food, accommodation and travel scholarships, as well asongoing > support through the coming year from our staff to help implement yourplan.>> HOW TO APPLY >> We are looking for people who can actively participate in the Cal GE-Free > network as a regional organizer for one year and commit 20 hours permonth, have > a strong commitment to sustainable agriculture, good communicationskills, and > are willing to work on both local campaigns and collaborative statewideefforts. > We will give priority to groups of 2-4 people who live in the same regionand > will be attending the training together.>> For more information and to get involved, check outhttp://www.calgefree.org, or > email Renata Brillinger at renata> ************************************************************************> Sonoma County, California - next county to go GE-Free?>> GE Free Campaign Gathers Record Number of Signatures> Grassroots Coalition Certain to Qualify for Ballot>> Santa Rosa, California Advocates for a moratorium on geneticallyengineered > crops turned in 45,387 petition signatures today, shattering the previousSonoma > County record of less than 33,000. Despite torrential rain in the pastfew > weeks, nearly one in five County voters stopped to sign the petition andshow > their support. >> I talked with people from all ages and backgrounds, all walks of life,and I > found broad and enthusiastic support every time I went out, saidChristina > Hoex, a Radiologic Technologist at Memorial Hospital in Santa Rosa, whogathered > over 1500 signatures from people throughout Sonoma County. >> The signatures were gathered by over 500 volunteers, also a countyrecord. > Campaign Coordinator Daniel Solnit called the results A real victory.This > represents an incredible amount of dedication and hard work by hundredsof > people who took time out of their busy lives, time from work and family,to make > this happen. Most of our volunteers are not activists, they have not been > involved in campaigns before, but care deeply about protecting our foodand > farms from this threat.>> This has been an incredible experience, said Linda Vaccaraza, a motherof two > and resident of Sonoma, I took time off of work to gather signaturesbecause > this is so important for my childrens future. We have to know what isbeing > done to our food, and that what our kids eat is safe.>> Derek Trowbridge, winegrower and owner of Old World Winery in Windsor,said, > Its plain good sense to put a ten-year moratorium on GE crops in SonomaCounty > -- that will give growers time to assess the dangers and possiblebenefits of GE > technologies. The risk of contamination of our farms is so serious thatpassing > this initiative is our only recourse.>> Observers consider the anti-GMO measure to be more moderate and betterwritten > than similar measures passed in Mendocino and Marin Counties last year.Dave > Henson, Director of Occidental Arts and Ecology Center and the primaryauthor of > the initiative, spent several months consulting with local farmers,scientists, > and public officials. In drafting the initiative, we wanted to getperspectives > from as many stakeholders as possible. I think we succeeded. This measurereally > protects our farmers, our local agricultural economy, and our environmentfrom > the potential risks of genetic contamination and loss of markets.>> The initiative prevents contamination of Sonoma Countys agriculture and > environment by placing a ten- year moratorium on the propagation,cultivation, > raising, growing, sale or distribution of transgenic organisms within the > county. The measure makes exceptions for agricultural or medicalresearch, and > exempts human food and animal feed products. The County Board ofSupervisors > would be able to amend the law by unanimous vote. If passed, the banwould be > enforced by the Sonoma County Agriculture Commissioner, who would ensurethat > prohibited GE organisms are destroyed or removed from the county.Violators who > knowingly grow or raise GE crops or animals could be charged for allabatement > costs, and fined a civil penalty of up to $1,000.>> *************************************************************************> Monsanto Fined $1.5 Million for International Bribery>> On January 6, 2005, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)announced a > settlement with Monsanto over a complaint filed in US District Court thata > company manager bribed an Indonesian environmental official over GEcrops. > Monsanto agreed to pay a $500,000 penalty, as well a $1 million penaltylevied > by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) based on the same bribe, which was > intended to induce the repeal of a 2001 environmental impact assessmentdecree > obstructing market entry for GE crops. >> The penalties, levied by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the > Department of Justice, may lend credence to a shareowner resolutionasking > Monsanto to report on GE risks, according to SocialFunds.com. >> At Friday's annual general meeting at Monsanto, the first shareownerresolution > asked the company to report on its genetic engineering (GE) strategy, and > enumerates a number of potential financial and reputational risks posedby GE. > These GE-related risks are documented in depth in a report released onJanuary > 5, 2005 by Innovest Strategic Value Advisors, a socially responsibleinvestment > (SRI) research firm. Before and after the report's release, manyGE-related > risks have materialized, lending weight to the resolution. >> "Monsanto voluntarily disclosed to the governmental agencies potentialfinancial > irregularities with its Indonesian affiliates after an internal audit and > follow-up review by management and outside counsel raised suspicions ofpossible > non-compliance with company procedures," said Lori Fisher, a Monsanto > spokesperson. "We accept full responsibility for the improper activitiesthat > occurred in connection with our Indonesian affiliates." >> "Such behavior is not condoned nor accepted at Monsanto, and the peopleinvolved > are no longer employed by Monsanto," Ms. Fisher told SocialFunds.com. >> Monsanto's voluntary disclosure of the illegal bribe and the manipulationof > records to cover it up enacts the kind of transparency requested by the > resolution, and its accepting accountability is commendable. However, Ms.Fisher > did not comment on potential links between the material liabilitiesresulting > from Monsanto's need to seek extralegal measures to advance its GEstrategy and > the need to report comprehensively to its shareowners on the risks of the > strategy. >> The Innovest report identifies a number of GE-related risks. >> "Major market rejection and sudden business strategy reversals raisedoubt that > Monsanto is properly evaluating the risks of its genetically engineered > products," said Michael Passoff, who heads the Corporate SocialResponsibility > Program of the As You Sow Foundation. As You Sow, a San Francisco-based > nonprofit advocacy organization, sponsored the Innovest report andco-filed the > GE resolution. "In the last 14 months Monsanto has had to abandoned plansto > commercialize its most important future product, its most importantfuture area > of research, and the country with its highest level of marketpenetration." >> According to the report, Monsanto canceled plans to commercialize GEwheat, on > which it spent $60 million in 2004, and it dropped plans to develop > pharmaceutical crops. To illustrate market rejection of GE seeds, whichare > designed to complement Monsanto's flagship herbicide product Roundup, thereport > cites the example of Argentina. >> "While over 95 percent of soy planted in that country is Roundup Ready,Monsanto > was forced to shut down its operations there in 2004 because it could notearn > revenues," writes Marc Brammer, the Innovest senior analyst who authoredthe > report. "The acres planted and penetration numbers touted by themarketing > department suggest booming profits. >> "However, the balance sheet reveals a quite different story of political > wrangling ending in little, if any, profit," added Mr. Brammer. >> Just last week, a similar situation developed elsewhere in South Americawhen a > Brazilian court ordered a stay on royalty payments to Monsanto forRoundup Ready > soy seed, as a group of 8,700 growers there assert royalties should applyonly > to seeds, not to the soy produced. >> And while Monsanto maintains that GE is strictly regulated, the Innovestreport > identifies significant gaps in regulatory oversight by the US Food & Drug > Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the US > Department of Agriculture (USDA). >> "The biggest misperception about genetically engineered crops is that theFDA > has tested these plants and declared them safe--what the FDA has done is > approved genetically engineered crop commercialization based onMonsanto's > assurance that the products are safe," said Mr. Passoff. "Monsanto andits > shareholders are responsible for all legal and financial liabilities." >> For more information:> www.Socialfunds.com> As You Sow - www.asyousow.org> Innovest - www.innovestgroup.com> Corporate Social Responsibility Program - www.proxyinformation.com> ***********************************************************************>> Thank You True Food Network for Your Generous Donations!>> We received just over $5,000 from True Food Network members in 2004!Thanks to > all of you for your support and generosity. While this is almost doublewhat we > raised in 2003 from individual supporters, we still need to raise more in2005 > to keep our programs going. We have set the goal of doubling our 2004donations > - aiming to raise $10,000 from our members and individuals in 2005! Ifyou have > already given your end-of-the-year donation, thank you! If you have not,please > consider a donation today! Your support makes our work possible. You candonate > online today at > http://www.truefoodnow.org/donate.html>> Or send your tax-deductible donation as a check or money order to:> The True Food Network> 2921 Chapman Street, Suite 2> Oakland, CA 94601>> The True Food Network is now a fiscally-sponsored project of Earth Island > Institute, a 501c3 non-profit, and your donations are tax-deductible tothe full > e> gean