GM: New study shows unborn babies could be harmed

[align=left]so gobble up that fake, unsustainable food...[/align]
[align=left] [/align]
[align=left]GM: New study shows unborn babies could be harmed
Mortality rate for new-born rats six times higher when mother was fed on a diet of modified soya

London Independent | January 8, 2006
By Geoffrey Lean [/align]
Women who eat GM foods while pregnant risk endangering their unborn babies, startling new research suggests.

The study - carried out by a leading scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences - found that more than half of the offspring of rats fed on modified soya died in the first three weeks of life, six times as many as those born to mothers with normal diets. Six times as many were also severely underweight.

The research - which is being prepared for publication - is just one of a clutch of recent studies that are reviving fears that GM food damages human health. Italian research has found that modified soya affected the liver and pancreas of mice. Australia had to abandon a decade-long attempt to develop modified peas when an official study found they caused lung damage.

And last May this newspaper revealed a secret report by the biotech giant Monsanto, which showed that rats fed a diet rich in GM corn had smaller kidneys and higher blood cell counts, suggesting possible damage to their immune systems, than those that ate a similar conventional one.

The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation held a workshop on the safety of genetically modified foods at its Rome headquarters late last year. The workshop was addressed by scientists whose research had raised concerns about health dangers. But the World Trade Organisation is expected next month to support a bid by the Bush administration to force European countries to accept GM foods.

The Russian research threatens to have an explosive effect on already hostile public opinion. Carried out by Dr Irina Ermakova at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, it is believed to be the first to look at the effects of GM food on the unborn.

The scientist added flour from a GM soya bean - produced by Monsanto to be resistant to its pesticide, Roundup - to the food of female rats, starting two weeks before they conceived, continuing through pregnancy, birth and nursing. Others were given non-GM soyaand a third group was given no soya at all.

She found that 36 per cent of the young of the rats fed the modified soya were severely underweight, compared to 6 per cent of the offspring of the other groups. More alarmingly, a staggering 55.6 per cent of those born to mothers on the GM diet perished within three weeks of birth, compared to 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed normal soya, and 6.8 per cent of the young of those given no soya at all.

"The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results very disturbing" said Dr Ermakova. "They point to a risk for mothers and their babies."

Environmentalists say that - while the results are preliminary - they are potentially so serious that they must be followed up. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has asked the US National Institute of Health to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up.

The Monsanto soya is widely eaten by Americans. There is little of it, or any GM crop, in British foods though it is imported to feed animals farmed for meat.

Tony Coombes, director of corporate affairs for Monsanto UK, said: "The overwhelming weight of evidence from published, peer-reviewed, independently conducted scientific studies demonstrates that Roundup Ready soy can be safely consumed by rats, as well as all other animal species studied."

What the experiment found

Russian scientists added flour made from a GM soya to the diet of female rats two weeks before mating them, and continued feeding it to them during pregnancy, birth and nursing. Others were give non-GM soya or none at all. Six times as many of the offspring of those fed the modified soya were severely underweight compared to those born to the rats given normal diets. Within three weeks, 55.6 per cent of the young of the mothers given the modified soya died, against 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed the conventional soya.

Women who eat GM foods while pregnant risk endangering their unborn babies, startling new research suggests.

The study - carried out by a leading scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences - found that more than half of the offspring of rats fed on modified soya died in the first three weeks of life, six times as many as those born to mothers with normal diets. Six times as many were also severely underweight.

The research - which is being prepared for publication - is just one of a clutch of recent studies that are reviving fears that GM food damages human health. Italian research has found that modified soya affected the liver and pancreas of mice. Australia had to abandon a decade-long attempt to develop modified peas when an official study found they caused lung damage.

And last May this newspaper revealed a secret report by the biotech giant Monsanto, which showed that rats fed a diet rich in GM corn had smaller kidneys and higher blood cell counts, suggesting possible damage to their immune systems, than those that ate a similar conventional one.

The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation held a workshop on the safety of genetically modified foods at its Rome headquarters late last year. The workshop was addressed by scientists whose research had raised concerns about health dangers. But the World Trade Organisation is expected next month to support a bid by the Bush administration to force European countries to accept GM foods.

The Russian research threatens to have an explosive effect on already hostile public opinion. Carried out by Dr Irina Ermakova at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, it is believed to be the first to look at the effects of GM food on the unborn.

The scientist added flour from a GM soya bean - produced by Monsanto to be resistant to its pesticide, Roundup - to the food of female rats, starting two weeks before they conceived, continuing through pregnancy, birth and nursing. Others were given non-GM soyaand a third group was given no soya at all.

She found that 36 per cent of the young of the rats fed the modified soya were severely underweight, compared to 6 per cent of the offspring of the other groups. More alarmingly, a staggering 55.6 per cent of those born to mothers on the GM diet perished within three weeks of birth, compared to 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed normal soya, and 6.8 per cent of the young of those given no soya at all.

"The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results very disturbing" said Dr Ermakova. "They point to a risk for mothers and their babies."

Environmentalists say that - while the results are preliminary - they are potentially so serious that they must be followed up. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has asked the US National Institute of Health to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up.

The Monsanto soya is widely eaten by Americans. There is little of it, or any GM crop, in British foods though it is imported to feed animals farmed for meat.

Tony Coombes, director of corporate affairs for Monsanto UK, said: "The overwhelming weight of evidence from published, peer-reviewed, independently conducted scientific studies demonstrates that Roundup Ready soy can be safely consumed by rats, as well as all other animal species studied."

What the experiment found

Russian scientists added flour made from a GM soya to the diet of female rats two weeks before mating them, and continued feeding it to them during pregnancy, birth and nursing. Others were give non-GM soya or none at all. Six times as many of the offspring of those fed the modified soya were severely underweight compared to those born to the rats given normal diets. Within three weeks, 55.6 per cent of the young of the mothers given the modified soya died, against 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed the conventional soya.

there have been cases where GM food corporations have sued farmers because THEIR seeds have taken over farmers' crops...how fucking ludicrous is that...oh well, hopefully in the future we'll rely on few government allied corporations to control our food supply...

we won't be free until that happens...we need to get rid of farmers...they are evil and working with al-qaeda.

[align=left]House waters down modified-seed bill[/align]

Vermont Press | January 4, 2006
By Louis Porter

MONTPELIER â?? A long-debated measure designed to hold seed manufacturers liable for the accidental spread of genetically modified crops was narrowly defeated in the House Monday, a busy first day of the new session.

The House passed a less stringent version of the bill, which requires that lawsuits over the unintentional spread of genetically modified crops be filed in Vermont courts and affirms farmers' rights to sue companies under consumer protection law.

It is not the end of the issue, however, because the Senate passed the tougher proposal last year and a compromise will have to be worked out with the House before the end of the session.

Dozens of farmers and activists on both sides of the debate crowded the Statehouse. Supporters of the more stringent version of the bill wore red shirts, and sat elbow-to-elbow with those who opposed the bill and wore green caps.

Organic farmers who do not use genetically altered seeds could lose money if their crops are accidentally pollinated with genetically modified corn or soybeans, according to supporters of applying so-called "strict liability" to genetically modified seeds.

Under current law and contracts with seed manufacturers, the farmers would have to sue their neighbors, not the manufacturers, they said.

If strict liability was applied to genetically manufactured seeds, a farmer who suffered a loss due to pollen drift would not have to demonstrate negligence on the part of the manufacturer to claim damages.

But farmers who use the seeds and other opponents of the strict liability proposal said that seed manufacturers may stop selling the products in Vermont at all if the bill passed. And, they added, strict liability is more suited to inherently dangerous materials like explosives than to genetically modified seeds, they said.

The version of the bill which included the strict liability provision was defeated in a 79-68 vote.

"It is government trying to protect people from themselves," said Jeff Sanders of St. Albans, who left the 1,400 acres he farms to make his first trip to the Statehouse to oppose the measure. "GMO products are a tool conventional farmers use to eke out a living. Tradition is that neighboring farmers work out their differences and generally they can do a pretty good job."

But farmer Armand Pion worries about what would happen if the pollen from the genetically modified corn he used this year spreads to his neighbors' organic crops.

"If they can be allowed to sell the GMO seed they should be held responsible for what happens with it," he said of the manufacturers.

Cross-pollination could easily have happened, since without even thinking about it he planted genetically modified corn near his neighbor's fields, said Pion, who sells both organic and conventional feed.

Lawmakers were just as divided as farmers.

The strict liability proposal isn't about whether genetically modified crops are safe, said Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier.

"A farmer needs to be on a level playing field with these corporations in court," he said. Without the strict liability provision a farmer cannot afford to sue a large seed manufacturer, Klein said.

But Rep. Harvey Smith, R-New Haven, said that the strict liability proposal was in reality about opposition to genetically modified products.

It is "a backdoor attempt to disallow the use of biotech seeds in Vermont," he said.

Secretary of Agriculture Steve Kerr opposed strict liability and was pleased by the vote.

"I think it is a good policy decision," said Kerr.

One lawmaker who wasn't heard from was Rep. Dexter Randall, P-North Troy, who proposed the strict liability provision and was taken to the hospital Monday night for pain from an apparent heart attack.

"I still feel that strict liability was the way to go," Randall said by telephone from the hospital. "It would point the finger right back at the manufacturer, where it belongs. The farmer would know he could recover damages."

Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor, majority leader and a supporter of applying strict liability to genetically altered crops, said the debate will continue when the conference committee of House and Senate members meets.

"The Senate feels very strongly that strict liability should be part of the bill," he said.

[align=left]EU Commission rejects Greek ban on Monsanto biotech corn type[/align]

Associated Press | January 10, 2006

The European Union's executive arm drew criticism from environmentalists Tuesday by overruling a Greek ban on a variety of genetically modified corn seed developed by the U.S. biotech giant Monsanto Co.

"The European Commission cannot continue to ignore the number of countries and regions that want to ban genetically modified foods and crops," said Adrian Bebb, of Friends of the Earth. "It is time the European Commission supported these bans instead of supporting the biotech industry."

The commission said the Greek prohibition of the MON810 seed types was not warranted on health or safety grounds following the biotech seed's approval for sale across the EU in September 2004.

The EU ended a six-year moratorium on accepting applications for new biotech products in May 2004, under strict approval procedures and labeling regulations. However, several EU nations remain reluctant to authorize biotech crops because of public health and environmental concerns.

In April, Greece said it would ban the cultivation of MON810 seeds in 2005-2006 despite the commission's decision to approve them.

Under EU rules, the commission has powers to overturn the Greek ban, because Athens failed to muster sufficient backing from the other 24 EU nations to secure a vote of support.

[align=left]GM crops no help to Africa so far[/align]

Reuters | January 10, 2006
By Manoah Esipisu

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Gene-altered crops have made little impact in ending rampant poverty and hunger in Africa or elsewhere a decade after the first significant plantings, two anti-GMO lobbyists said on Tuesday.

The Africa Centre for Biosafety and Friends of the Earth Nigeria said in a report issued in Johannesburg that promises by biotech corporations that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would offer cheap quality food for Africa remained unfulfilled.

"Contrary to the promises made by the biotech industry, the reality of the last 10 years shows that the safety of GM crops cannot be ensured and that these crops are neither cheaper nor (of) better quality," said Nnimmo Bassey of Friends of the Earth Nigeria.

"Biotech crops are not a solution to solve hunger in Africa or elsewhere," he said in the report.

But U.S. biotech giant Monsanto rejected that conclusion, saying there were thousands of documented benefits of GMO technologies in South Africa, China, India and parts of America.

"With the exception of South Africa, which still produces a surplus of food, no other African, poverty stricken country has yet had the opportunity to plant transgenic food crops -- they are still in the process of implementing regulatory legislation," Andrew Bennett, a Johannesburg-based Monsanto official, told Reuters.

"So, clearly, these technologies have not had the opportunity to impact hunger and poverty. It is not coincidental that the only country in Africa that has approved transgenic crops is the only one with a surplus of grain and is also able to supply food to its neighbours," Bennett added.

The report said GMO crops in Africa would not solve hunger because most crops so far available were meant for animal feed and did not target hunger or poverty.

It said the GMO sweet potato in Kenya, presented by researchers as a key crop to help African agriculture, had shown little success by the end of January 2004.

It also said that after 10 years of GMO crop cultivation more than 80 percent of the area cultivated with biotech crops was still concentrated in only three countries -- the United States, Argentina and Canada.

Intensive cultivation of GMO soybeans in South America contributed to deforestation, and had been associated with a decline in soil fertility and soil erosion, the report added.

Monsanto's Bennett said his group and other biotech corporations were profit-driven but gains from their work could be traced around the world where 7 million farmers in 17 countries had planted 81 million hectares of transgenic crops.

Ten years of genetically modified crops

Kansas City, Missouri
January 9, 2006 - 12:56AM

When Monsanto introduced the world to genetically modified crops a decade ago, the biotech advancement was heralded as the dawn of a new era that could reduce world hunger, help the environment and bolster struggling farmers.

Now, biotech beans, cotton, corn and canola are profit-drivers at Monsanto and are lifting the fortunes of rival companies like Swiss-based Syngenta and Dow AgroSciences, a unit of Dow Chemical Co.

The gains are largely due to a broad US acceptance of crops that have been genetically altered to withstand weed killers and insects, and backers say, generate higher yields.

But as the industry celebrates its 10th anniversary, the early promises of biotech crops remain largely unrealised, and many countries have banned the technology amid concerns about potential danger for human health and the environment.

"GM products have not lived up to those early exaggerated expectations," said Joel Cohen, senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute. "We now have a series of very dependable, reliable crops using this technology. But there is still a large precautionary perspective."

Indeed, for nearly every step forward, there is a step back. Last month, cereal giant Kellogg announced it would start using a healthy low linolenic oil derived only from Monsanto's biotech soybean in its biscuits, crackers and other food products.

But less than two weeks later, rival Kraft Foods, the world's second-largest food producer, said it would stop supplying all genetically engineered food products, including additives, to China due to a lack of market acceptance. Pepsico and Coca-Cola have made similar pledges.

There have been other recent setbacks, including a decision in November by Swiss voters to ban the planting of biotech crops for five years, and the recent revelation in Australia that a biotech pea caused health problems in research mice, forcing cancellation of that project.

In 2004 Monsanto was forced to withdraw a biotech wheat it planned to sell in the United States and Canada because of strong market opposition. Other failed projects include Monsanto's delayed-ripening tomato and a healthier potato.

"Genetic engineering has not delivered on any of its promises for human health benefits," said Margaret Mellon, director of the Agriculture and Biotechnology Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "There are a lot of failures scattered at the side of the road."

Other critics say biotech crops have created more problems than they've solved, creating herbicide-resistant weeds, for instance.

Backers say biotech crops are good for the environment because they can reduce the amount of chemicals needed to grow healthy crops. Opponents say chemical use increases many times because of weed resistance and other problems.

And they say that farmer profits tied to better yields get eaten up by the higher prices they pay for biotech seeds. Critics say the technology has not eased hunger because many poor countries are unable or unwilling to adopt it.

Still, acreage planted with biotech crops around the world is increasing and last year topped more than 404 million hectares sown to soybeans, corn, cotton, canola and other crops.

In the United States, 52 per cent of all corn, 79 per cent of upland cotton and 87 per cent of soybeans planted in 2004-05 were biotech varieties, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

An industry report is expected to show good growth not only in the United States but in many other countries. Barriers in Europe are slowly lowering and new products in the pipeline should help improve acceptance, biotech backers say.

"We're now 10 years into it, on a billion acres in 17 countries," said Dow AgroSciences vice-president of plant genetics Pete Siggelko. "There will be some continuing bumps in the road, but we are starting to see a balance of very good news and growth. The genie is way out of the bottle."

Cotton, corn, soybeans and canola, all first rolled out in the
1995/1996 growing seasons, remain the top biotech crops but the future should bring new crops, biotech backers say.

Iran became the first country to commercialise biotech rice in
2004, approving a pest-resistant variety.

And Syngenta last year announced a new strain of "golden rice" that produces up to 23 times as much beta-carotene as previous varieties. The rice will be available for free to research centres across Asia.

Michael Fernandez, executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, said there is currently "enormous investment" in agricultural biotechnology in China, Argentina, Chile and other countries, and genetically modified rice was likely to gain approval in China in the near future, a move that could shift acceptance globally in favour of biotech food.

"We haven't seen anything that has been dramatically new in a while," Fernandez said. "But I think we're starting to see signs of more movement forward."

REUTERS