UPI: China rejects 60,000 tons of GM corn from the US.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/14922-china-destroys-three-shipments-of-gm-corn-from-us

China destroys three shipments of GM corn from US
on 22 May 2013.

1. Wanzai Port in Zhuhai City destroyed two shipments of imported GM foods
2. Harbin intercepted a total of 115 kgs of GM corn seeds, which will be destroyed

NOTE: The news items below report that in May, the Chinese government destroyed three shipments of GM corn from the US. The shipments were illegal under China’s GMO biosafety law.

The law says that the Ministry of Agriculture must require environmental and food safety tests to be carried out by Chinese institutions, in order to verify data provided by the seed developer. All these documents must be reviewed by the National Biosafety Committee before the MOA can issue a safety certificate.

http://bit.ly/10jvwaa

Yet these shipments of US corn did not have the relevant safety certificates and approval documents, according to the news reports below.

A Chinese citizen, whom we call Mr Li, calls the new government’s decisive move to destroy the illegal GMOs “progressive, encouraging, and satisfying”. He regards it as a sign that it is keeping its promise to work for the people and the nation.

Mr Li said: “The deeply pro-GMO old government would not have made such a thing public. It would have secretly returned the shipments, or in most cases it would not even have inspected shipments that could contain GM ingredients.”

The Ministry of Agriculture of the previous government raised the anger of citizens when it failed to require any independent experiments to test the safety of Monsanto's GM soybeans, in violation of Chinese law:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/micro-reading/dzh/2012-06-12/content_6157498.html (bilingual article over 3 pages)

However, Mr Li says the new government still has a long way to go to eliminate the GMOs that he and others believe are being grown across the country and to impose a ban on domestically grown and imported GMOs.

The news of the new Chinese government’s actions comes shortly after China told a delegation of Brazilian soy producers that the better-off part of its population wants non-GM soy, even if they have to pay more:

http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/52-2013/14778
---
---
1. Wanzai Port in Zhuhai City destroyed two shipments of imported GM foods
Zhuhai Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, 7 May 2013

http://www.zhciq.gov.cn/showInfo.do?infoId=26648
(translated from the Chinese by Mr Li)



Recently, during inspection and quarantine of imported food from USA by a certain company, the Wanzai Office of Zhuhai Inspection and Quarantine Bureau (in Guangdong Province in the south of China) detected two shipments containing GM corn products, which are not in compliance with China's "Entry and Exit of Genetically Modified Products Inspection and Quarantine Management Approach". The Office destroyed the two shipments of corn according to the provisions.
---
---
2. Harbin intercepted a total of 115 kgs of GM corn seeds, which will be destroyed
news.china.com.cn, 19 May 2013
http://news.china.com.cn/politics/2013-05/19/content_28867193.htm
(translated from the Chinese by Mr Li)

Recently, the Harbin Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau intercepted inbound mail of 21 cartons of corn seeds from USA, totaling 115 kgs, which were detected as GM seeds. This is the first time that the Heilongjiang Provincial Inspection and Quarantine System has intercepted inbound corn seeds containing GM ingredients. These corn seeds will be destroyed.

Because the USA is a corn bacterial wilt infected area, China has banned import of US corn seeds. The above-mentioned corn seeds were shipped from the same US company to two seed companies in Heilongjiang Province. According to China's relevant provisions, all agricultural GMOs imported from abroad should be cleared with the relevant departments in advance. However, this shipment of corn seed did not have the relevant safety certificates and approval documents.



According to the relevant person in charge of the inspection and quarantine, if an import contains GM ingredients without risk assessment and approval, there is a great possibility that pests will sneak in at the same time. If not strictly controlled, this could pose a significant threat to agricultural production and public health.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2012/14430-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do

Do as I say, not as I do
Natural Products, 8 November 2012

...In China – the Special Food Supply Center supplies China’s political elite with organic, strictly non-GM food including hormone- and antibiotic-free meat. However, recent government incentives have led to 40% annual organic market growth in the past 5 years, so there is a trickle down effect

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15096-interview-with-dr-thierry-vrain-gmo-whistleblower

Interview with Dr Thierry Vrain, GMO whistleblower
on 03 October 2013.

Interesting interview with a man who changed his mind on GMO but who, unlike Mark Lynas, a GMO convert who went the other way, understands the science.

http://commonground.ca/2013/10/dr-thierry-vrain-gmo-whistleblower/

GMO spokesman turned GMO whistleblower followed the science
Interview by Tsiporah Grignon
Common Ground, October 2013

<>

Q: Have you read Prof. Huber’s research on glyphosate, a main active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide?

A: Don Huber studied the effect of Roundup on the decrease of nutrients in the plant. I spent time with him two years ago so I am reasonably familiar with what he has written. There is something interesting about your question about the GMO plant’s effect on the soil. The GMO plant is a plant with a new gene that has been inserted somewhere and usually with a gene that makes for the trait, e.g. a bacterial gene that would make a protein that could kill caterpillars. But when you engineer a plant, it is a random process. You need a way to select for the cells to be engineered because not every cell is engineered. And until very recently, the way to do that was to insert another gene (at least the gene you want), an antibiotic resistant gene, usually bacterial genes. And that antibiotic resistance gene is in the genome; it’s in the roots, it can go into the soil, so that can be picked up by the bacteria in the soil. There is a publication out of China, from the University of Szechuan, where researchers have shown that every river in the sample contained antibiotic resistance gene that, in all probability, came from the local transgenic plants.

Q: What did The Human Genome Project discover?

A: In the cells of every living organism are three major kinds of molecules: carbohydrates made by plant photosynthesis from sunlight and lipids and proteins. The carbs and lipids don’t move; they just sit there. The proteins do the work because they move. Every molecule of protein can twitch, make a movement, and that twitch can do something. That molecule can twitch another molecule and affect something in the cell and that’s what proteins do. Proteins are what make life because life is movement. So when you want to engineer a plant what you are actually doing is engineering a protein in the plant so that the protein will do something new in the plant, such as herbicide or insect resistance.

The Human Genome Project was finished in 2002. It took 10 years to sequence the whole genome of a person. The whole genome was deciphered. That was a very important point because the human body functions with about 100,000 proteins. It’s been well known since the late 1940s that DNA calls for proteins and the hypothesis of the 1940s was the “one gene, one protein hypothesis.” The dogma of molecular biology for the last 70 years was that each gene calls for a protein. So they believed if you have 100,000 proteins in your body, you will have 100,000 genes or more. Except when the Human Genome Project was completed we realized we only have 20,000 genes in our body. So 20,000 genes can make (causes the creation of) 100,000 proteins? The math does not add up and that’s what I am referring to. In fact, in 2002, the dogma of the one gene one protein hypothesis became null and void; it just doesn’t work that way.

What we discovered was that the genome of any living organism is a much more complex eco-system where 95% of the DNA is actually regulating the other 5% of that code for proteins. OK, you have a new DNA, about 5% of the DNA that is actually coding for protein in the genes. The rest is all kinds of DNA we have no idea how it works. When I was in graduate school, and later as a genetic engineer, it was called Junk DNA [laughter]. When you engineer a plant, you put a gene in the plant. That gene is going to make a protein. And that gene can go anywhere in the plant because you have no control. It goes anywhere in the genome, anywhere in the chromosome. And that gene is now under a regulatory sequence that it was not naturally regulated by before.

There are a good number of studies now showing that engineered plants have proteins that are quite different than the proteins that are expected, so-called rogue proteins. These proteins are truncated; they are different. They might function as a protein to kill caterpillars, for example. Or they might not. But they are different and that difference has not been investigated. Basically, the dogma is you put in a gene and you get the protein you want. So much so that the regulatory agencies, when they want to test for the safety of genetically engineered crops, all they need to show is that the protein that was inserted into the plant is safe, but they don’t go and test the new protein actually created in the plant.

Q: So unintended consequences are not even looked at, never mind ignored.

A: Completely.

Q: So how can they get away with calling GMOs safe?

A: Before the Human Genome Project, there was the one gene, one protein theory. Scientists simply thought you take a gene from a bacteria and put it in another bacteria, that you will get the protein you want and the effect you want. So it’s considered substantially equivalent.

Q: Have they ignored the results of the Human Genome Project?

A: I think that the consequences of the Human Genome Project are conveniently ignored. As soon as you start questioning that, and you say, OK, there may be more than one protein in the plant other than the protein intended, you bring in the regulations from the FDA and they are very clear: that if you are putting something on the market that is not substantially equivalent, something that is a little bit different, something that has a new protein or proteins are a little bit different, or the nutrients are a little bit different, then automatically they must do testing. Since 1996, they have completely waived responsibility, saying it’s completely substantially equivalent, claiming there are no differences, therefore companies don’t even need to look at them or do any substantial testing for safety!

Q: The 2008 film "The World According to Monsanto" exposed the revolving door between the bio-tech industry and government.

A: I read that Dr. Shiv Chopra was offered a million dollars to close his eyes and sign off on the RBGH incident but he refused and was fired because he just wouldn’t shut up. [Editor’s Note: Drs. Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon, and Gérard Lambert are former Health Canada scientists who were dismissed for “insubordination” in 2004 after publicly expressing serious reservations about the approval of products they believed would harm the food chain and ultimately threaten the well-being of Canadians. A cross Canada public speaking tour, starting in BC, with Dr. Chopra and Dr. Vrain, is in the planning stage for the second half of November.]

Q: Are you still in touch with some of your GE colleagues and are they aware of your turnabout?

A: No. You can now see how it is possible for scientists to ignore major sources of information.

<>

http://www.elle.com/news/culture/gmo-food-debate

Let's Discuss (Again): The GMO Food Debate
ELLE, August 9 2013

Because the issue of the safety of genetic modified food is such a deeply contentious one, when ELLE published Caitlin Shetterly’s story "Bad Seed," we expected that some might object that it unfairly maligned GMOs. And Jon Entine, the author of Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health, has done that in Slate.

In our piece, Shetterly recounts how she and her allergist came to believe that genetically altered corn was the probable cause of the debilitating, allergic illness that afflicted her, one marked by a profusion of a kind of white blood cells called eosinophils. Her point of view was clear, but at the same time she—and ELLE—were committed to airing both sides of the GMO debate.

Entine, however, ignored passages in the piece that didn’t fit his thesis that so-called “lifestyle magazines” like ELLE “credulously stoke conspiratorial fears” about GMOs. For example, Shetterly included the perspective of Amal Assa’ad, MD, a professor at the University of Cincinnati medical school, who dismisses Shetterly’s anxiety over GMO’s safety “as almost magical thinking.” The story continues: “What’s wrong with chemicals?” [Assa’ad] asked. “We’re so afraid of chemicals because they are man-made, right? A lot of chemicals have helped us—a lot of medications are chemicals.” If anything, GMO foods have been a boon to mankind, Assa’ad said. GMO seeds “produce better crops that have increased production, that are resistant to pesticides—crops that can feed the rest of the world.”

Entine also communicated with Shetterly’s sources, some of whom took issue with how their opinions were portrayed. After reviewing the work of Shetterly and ELLE’s fact-checker, who examined the transcripts of interviews with each source and/or confirmed their statements via email or by phone—we stand by our story.

<>

In the course of reporting the piece, Shetterly spoke with a number of researchers and medical professionals who told her they couldn’t go on the record about their doubts about GMOs because they feared being sued by a biotech or agriculture company, or losing grant money provided by the private sector. Von Tiehl, who also told Entine that ELLE’s article wrongly suggested that he thinks “there is something scary or obviously wrong or concerning about GMO foods”, was one of those who worried about his legal exposure.

<>

Here is an excerpt from the taped, transcribed interview between Shetterly and von Tiehl:

CS: Do you read labels and see all those hidden places where GMO corn is like xanthan gum, citric acid, ascorbic acid, natural flavorings? [GMO corn is used to make all those substances.] Would you not buy those things?

KVT: I can’t answer that question for legal reasons.

CS: Really?...

KVT: I can’t tell you how I have personally changed my diet.

CS: Because you’re afraid of being sued?

KVT: Because I’m afraid of being sued by big agribusiness.

<>

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/27/970849/-What-do-you-know-about-Food-Disparagement-Laws#

WED APR 27, 2011 AT 07:01 PM PDT
What do you know about Food Disparagement Laws?
byBill Tchakirides

<>

Senator Patrick Leahy (D – Vermont) made this statement in the late ’90s concerning this situation:

"Some states permit lawsuits against those who question the safety of our food supply. It is my view that under the First Amendment, Americans possess the right to raise safety and health concerns about the foods we eat, such as the levels of mercury in our fish or the levels of pesticides in imported foods. State laws that permit lawsuits against those who question the safety of foods can have a chilling effect on public health discourse. That is not the American way –healthy debate on issues of public concern is how this country does business.

The FoodSpeak Coalition highlights the chilling effect that these laws have on the exercise of free speech. Defamation laws should not intimidate citizens and the press who want to speak out about food safety. Americans in all states must be allowed to openly debate issues of public health."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/abc-news-sued-pink-slime-370126

ABC News Sued for $1.2 Billion Over Report on 'Pink Slime'

10:48 AM PDT 9/13/2012
by Eriq Gardner

Beef manufacturer claims defamation in March report that led to consumer uprising against a processed beef product.

ABC has been hit with a $1.2 billion lawsuit over "pink slime."

Beef Products Inc., a South Dakota-based boneless-lean-beef giant, has sued the network as well as news anchor Diane Sawyer and several correspondents for news reports that allegedly have caused the company harm.

Until March, much of the ground beef in supermarkets, many restaurants and school lunches used a meat product some have called "pink slime," which includes the use of fillers and trimmings, plus ammonia to kill bacteria. Then, ABC featured it, leading to a big consumer backlash

<...>

The lawsuit also targets Gerald Zirnstein, the USDA microbiologist who came up with the term "pink slime" and gave an interview to ABC.

<...>

Let's Discuss (Again): The GMO Food Debate

...In the course of reporting the piece, Shetterly spoke with a number of researchers and medical professionals who told her they couldn’t go on the record about their doubts about GMOs because they feared being sued by a biotech or agriculture company, or losing grant money provided by the private sector.

ABC News Sued for $1.2 Billion Over Report on 'Pink Slime'

...The lawsuit also targets Gerald Zirnstein, the USDA microbiologist who came up with the term "pink slime" and gave an interview to ABC.

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11801-pusztai-to-receive-stuttgart-peace-prize

Dr Pusztai on the 10th anniversary of GM safety scandal

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.

Dear Claire and Jonathan,

I thought that I should write to you on the 10th anniversary of my 150 seconds of TV "fame" and tell you what I think now. It is very appropriate to write to you because you have provided the most comprehensive service to inform people about the shenanigans of the GM biotechnology industry and its advocates.

On this anniversary I have to admit that, unfortunately, not much has changed since 1998. In one of the few sentences I said in my broadcast ten years ago, I asked for a credible GM testing protocol to be established that would be acceptable to the majority of scientists and to people in general. 10 years on we still haven't got one. Instead, in Europe we have an unelected EFSA GMO Panel with no clear responsibility to European consumers, which invariably underwrites the safety of whatever product the GM biotech industry is pushing onto us.

All of us asked for independent, transparent and inclusive research into the safety of GM plants, and particularly those used in foods. There is not much sign of this either. There are still "many opinions but very few data"; less than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published describing the results of work relating to GM safety that could actually be regarded as being of an academic standard; and the majority of even these is from industry-supported labs. Instead we have the likes of Tony Trewavas and others writing unsupported claims for the safety of GM food and defaming people like Rachel Carson who can no longer defend herself; not that she needs to be defended from such nonentities.

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.

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.

Let's hope that on the 20th anniversary I shall not have to write another warning letter about the dangers of untested GM foods!

Best wishes to all
Arpad Pusztai

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11801-pusztai-to-receive-stuttgart-peace-prize

Pustzai to Receive Stuttgart Peace Prize

We've just heard that Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Susan Bardocz will be presented with this year's Stuttgart Peace Prize. The award is for their tireless advocacy for independent risk research. Both have made an essential contribution to a broader understanding of the dangers of genetic manipulation. The award also honours their courage and scientific integrity as well as their undaunted insistence on the public's right to know.

The award will take place on 18 December with a Film and Book launch at 4 pm and a Peace Gala at 7:30 pm, at the Theaterhaus Stuttgart.

More details (in German) here: http://www.gentechnikfreies-europa.eu/

Below is a profile of Dr Pusztai and how he changed the GM debate.

http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai

Arpad Pusztai

The history of events and the quotes below are adapted from Andy Rowell's book, Don't Worry, It's Safe to Eat, Earthscan, 2003, ISBN 1853839329.

On 10 August 1998 the GM debate changed forever with the broadcast of a programme on British TV about GM food safety featuring a brief but revealing interview with Dr Arpad Pusztai about his research into GM food safety. Dr Pusztai told of his findings on the ill effects of GM potatoes on laboratory rats. He was subsequently gagged and suspended by his institute, the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland, his research team was disbanded, and his research data was confiscated. He was subjected to a campaign of vilification and misrepresentation by several pro-GM scientific bodies and pro-GM lobbyists, in an attempt to discredit him and his research.

The story began three years earlier. That's when the UK government's Scottish Office commissioned a three-year multi-centre research programme into the safety of GM food under the coordination of Dr Arpad Pusztai. At that time there was not a single publication in a peer-reviewed journal on the safety of GM food.

Dr Pusztai, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, was an eminent scientist. He was the world's leading expert on the plant proteins known as lectins. He had published three books and over 270 scientific studies.

He and his team fought off competition from 28 other research organisations from across Europe to be awarded the GBP1.6 million contract by the Scottish Office. The project methodology was also reviewed and passed by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) - the UK government's main funding body for the biological sciences.

The research involved feeding GM potatoes to rats and monitoring physiological changes. By late 1997 preliminary results from the rat-feeding experiments were showing totally unexpected and worrying changes in the size and weight of the rat's body organs. Liver and heart sizes were getting smaller, and so was the brain. There were also indications that the rats' immune systems were weakening.

<>

Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine
Dr Stanley WB Ewen FRCPath, Arpad Pusztai PhD
The Lancet - 16 October 1999 ( Vol. 354, Issue 9187, Pages 1353-1354 )
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7

http://www.gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/12567-scientists-under-attack-film-review

Scientists under attack: Genetic engineering in the magnetic field of money
By Bertram Verhaag
Review by Claire Robinson

Denkmal-Film GmbH 2009

Available in English, German, or French versions
WORLDSALES: Tel +44 20 7221 7221 Email [email protected] for one-off screeners for academic purposes. As yet there is no official distributor for public consumption and the film has not yet been released in the UK.

Billed as "a political thriller on GMOs and freedom of speech", this film by the German film-maker Bertram Verhaag tells the stories of two scientists, Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Ignacio Chapela, whose research showed negative findings on GM foods and crops. Both suffered the fate of those who challenge the powerful vested interests that dominate agribusiness and scientific research. They were vilified and intimidated, attempts were made to suppress and discredit their research, and their careers were derailed.

Pusztai found that the internal organs of rats fed GM insecticidal potatoes either increased in size or did not develop properly compared with controls. His experiments turned up no less than 36 significant differences between GM-fed and non-GM-fed animals. Pusztai, encouraged by his research institute, gave a 150-second interview on British TV in which he summarised his findings and said it was unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs for GM foods.

For two days, Pusztai was treated as a hero by his institute. But following a phone call from UK prime minister Tony Blair to the institute's head, Pusztai was fired and gagged under threat of a lawsuit. His research team was disbanded and his data were confiscated. Lies were circulated about his research that he could not counter due to the gagging order, lifted only later when he was due to appear before a Parliamentary Committee. For Pusztai’s co-researchers, the gagging order remains in place for life.

Pusztai's results threatened the GM industry because they showed that it wasn't the insecticide engineered into the potatoes that damaged the rats, but the genetic engineering process itself. So the problem wasn't just with these GM potatoes but potentially with all GM foods on the market. The only solution for the industry and its friends in government was to shoot the messenger.

Traumatic though this was for Pusztai, it wasn't the biggest shock he had to face regarding GM foods. That came when he was asked to review safety submissions from the GM industry for crops we were already eating and found that they were scientifically flimsy. "That was a turning point in my life," said Pusztai. "I was doing safety studies; they were doing as little as possible [in terms of safety testing] to get their foods on the market as quickly as they could."

Another scientist whose run-in with the GM industry is featured in the film is Ignacio Chapela, a molecular geneticist at UC Berkeley. His research, co-authored with David Quist and published in the journal Nature, revealed that Mexican maize had been contaminated with GM genes. The finding was explosive because Mexico is the centre of origin for maize and the planting of GM maize there was illegal.

Chapela found himself the target of a vicious internet campaign condemning him as more of an activist than a scientist and claiming that his paper was false. Nature's editor published a partial retraction of the paper. As Chapela points out in the film, the editor's action flew in the face of scientific method. In the normal way of things, a journal editor publishes a study that he and peer reviewers judge to be sound. It is for subsequent published studies to confirm or correct the findings. It is not for the editor to state that he would not have published a study had he known then what he knows now without the benefit of further peer reviewed scientific input. The editor's move showed how the GM industry is rewriting the rules of science for its own ends.

To add insult to injury, the internet campaign against Chapela turned out not to have been initiated and fuelled not by his scientific peers but by fake citizens, "sockpuppets" invented by the Bivings Group, a public relations firm contracted by Monsanto.

Scientists Under Attack goes on to show how the GM industry has blocked the evolution of scientific knowledge. When Russian scientist Irina Ermakova's study found high mortality rates and low body weight in rats fed GM soy, and when Austrian government research found that decreased fertility in mice fed GM maize, the industry carried out its usual campaign of vilification. If the industry were interested in scientific truth, it would push for studies to be repeated with the alleged "flaws" corrected. But this never happens. Instead, GM companies use their patent-based ownership of GM crops to deny scientists access to research materials the GM crop and the non-GM parent line control. So the original research showing problems with GM crops is buried under a deluge of smears and follow up studies are not done. For the public, the difficulty and expense involved in accessing full research papers makes it hard to find where the truth lies.

<>

UCB has dealt harshly with critics of its deals with industry. In 2003, five years after Chapela's protest against the Novartis deal and two years after publication of his Mexican maize findings, he was denied tenure. The university only backed down after Chapela threatened to sue. In Scientists Under Attack, he says: "In genetic engineering, one question means one career. You ask one question, you get the answer. You might or might not be able to publish it. That's the end of your career. What's unique in my case is that I survived."

Chapela adds that the most powerful censorship does not come directly from the GM industry but from closer to home: "It's in the consciousness of the scientist. You censor yourself." In other words, it's not so much that the GM industry has taken away our power, but rather that we've given it away.

<>

http://www.organicconsumers.org/documents/AMA-GE-resolutions-3-19-12.pdf

March 19, 2012

TO: AMA Council on Science and Public Health
FROM: Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Consumer Reports

RE: Resolutions 508 (Illinois) and 509 (Indiana) Supporting Federal Legislation and/or Regulations that Require Clearly Labeling Food with Genetically Engineered Ingredients

SUMMARY: Based on the scientific uncertainty surrounding both the molecular characterization of genetically engineered (GE) crops as well as the detection of potential allergenicity, there is more than enough uncertainty to decide to require labeling of foods produced via GE as a risk management measure as a way to identify unintended health effects that may occur post approval. If foods are not labeled as to GE status, it would be very difficult to even identify an unexpected health effect resulting from a GE food.

Dear Council Members:

I am writing to submit scientific evidence which strongly supports the intent of Resolutions 508 and 509 Supporting Federal Legislation and/or Regulations that Require Clearly Labeling Food with Genetically Engineered Ingredients. Consumer Union1 supports mandatory labeling for foods produced with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients for a number of reasons.

<>

Maize freely hybridizes with wild teosintes, but gene introgression is thought to be limited (OECD 2003, Serratos et al . 1995, Baltazar et al . 2005). Wild teosinte populations are limited to Mexico, Guatemala and a single population in Nicaragua and while teosinte is considered a serious weed by some farmers in Mexico, it is treated as a beneficial by others (Serratos et al . 1995).

Transgenic plants containing high concentrations of Cry1A proteins have been commercialized for food production (8). Although it is known that these proteins are safe for animals and man, the high immunogenicity of Cry1A proteins administered ig should be taken into account before releasing Cry-containing products for human use. On the other hand, the present data support the idea that pCry1Ac may be used as a carrier to introduce vaccinal epitopes either parenterally or locally into the mucosal tissues. Cry proteins might therefore represent a valuable tool in mucosal immunity studies, particularly on the dynamics of intestinal IgG production and its role in the intestinal immune protection against infectious pathogens.

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/biotech-ambassadors/

May 14th, 2013

U.S. Version – Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda


Read the Full Report

Agricultural development is essential for the developing world to foster sustainable economies, enhance food security to combat global hunger and increase resiliency to climate change. Addressing these challenges will require diverse strategies that emphasize sustainable, productive approaches that are directed by countries in the developing world.

But in the past decade, the United States has aggressively pursued foreign policies in food and agriculture that benefit the largest seed companies. The U.S. State Department has launched a concerted strategy to promote agricultural biotechnology, often over the opposition of the public and governments, to the near exclusion of other more sustainable, more appropriate agricultural policy alternatives.

The U.S. State Department has also lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology and challenged commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules — even including opposing laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.

Food & Water Watch closely examined five years of State Department diplomatic cables from 2005 to 2009 to provide the first comprehensive analysis of the strategy, tactics and U.S. foreign policy objectives to foist pro-agricultural biotechnology policies worldwide. Read the full report to learn more.

DOWNLOAD THE PDF

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/business/mylan-invests-in-epipen-as-child-allergies-increase.html?pagewanted=all

September 7, 2012
Tiny Lifesaver for a Growing Worry
By KATIE THOMAS

It has become an all-too-familiar story in schools across the country: a child eats a peanut or is stung by a bee and suffers an immediate, life-threatening allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis.

If parents and school authorities know about the allergy and a doctor’s prescription is on file, a nurse can quickly give an injection of epinephrine, saving the child’s life.

But school nurses in many districts face an agonizing choice if a child without a prescription develops a sudden reaction to an undiagnosed allergy. Should they inject epinephrine and risk losing their nursing license for dispensing it without a prescription, or call 911 and pray the paramedics arrive in time?

After a 7-year-old girl died in January in a similar case in Virginia, the state passed a law that allows any child who needs an emergency shot to get one. Beginning this month, every school district in Virginia is required to keep epinephrine injectors on hand for use in an emergency. Illinois, Georgia and Maryland have passed similar laws, and school nurses are pushing for one in Ohio. A lobbying effort backed by Mylan, which markets the most commonly used injector, the EpiPen, made by Pfizer, led to the introduction last year of a federal bill that would encourage states to pass such laws.

Mylan has also lobbied state legislatures around the country directly and is passing out free EpiPens this fall to any qualifying school that wants them.

“When a child is having an anaphylactic reaction, the only thing that can save her life is epinephrine,” said Maria L. Acebal, the chief executive of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network. “911 doesn’t get there fast enough.”

The efforts are an acknowledgment of the rising rates of food allergies among children and a handful of deaths from allergies across the country. In many schools, children carry their own epinephrine injectors in their backpacks to use themselves, if they’re old enough, or the devices are stored on their behalf in nurses’ offices.

<...>

[font style=color:blue]Although no one knows exactly why, the rate of food allergies among children appears to be on the rise.[/font] One survey found that in 2008, one in 70 children was allergic to peanuts, compared with one in 250 in 1997.

“I don’t think it’s overdiagnosis,” said Dr. Scott H. Sicherer, the author of the report and a researcher at the Jaffe Food Allergy Institute at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan. “There really seems to be a difference.”

A study last year in the journal Pediatrics found that about one in 13 children had a food allergy, and nearly 40 percent of those with allergies had severe reactions. A recent survey in Massachusetts, where schools are permitted to administer epinephrine to any student, found that one-quarter of students who had to be given the drug for a reaction did not know they had an allergy. But in many schools, employees are not allowed to use epinephrine injectors on children who do not have a prescription.

<...>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024028801

President Obama signs new law to put EpiPens in more Schools (pic)
November 13, 2013

[img] [/img]
POTUS signs new law to put EpiPens in more schools keeping children w/ asthma & allergies safe in the classroom

More: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/11/13/president-obama-signs-new-epipen-law-protect-children-asthma-and-severe-allergies-an
Link to video of the signing: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57612201/food-allergy-epinephrine-bill-reaches-obamas-desk/

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-09-03/news/0009030374_1_genetically-modified-new-proteins

"Genetically Altered Foods: We Are Being Exposed to One of the Largest Uncontrolled Experiments in History"

Martha Herbert
Chicago Tribune

September 3, 2000

BOSTON - Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history.

In less than five years these companies have flooded the marketplace with thousands of untested and unlabeled products containing foreign genetic material. These genetically modified foods pose several very real dangers because they have been engineered to create novel proteins that retard spoilage, produce their own pesticides against insects, or allow plants to tolerate larger and larger doses of weed killers. Despite claims that these food products are based on "sound science," in truth, neither manufacturers nor the government has studied the effects of these genetically altered organisms or their new proteins on people-especially babies, the elderly, and the sick. Can these products be toxic? Can they cause immune system problems? Can they damage an infant's developing nervous system? We need answers to these questions, and until then genetically altered ingredients should be removed from the food we eat.

As a pediatric neurologist, I especially worry about the safety of modified foods when it comes to children. We know that the human immune system, for example, is not fully developed in infants. Consequently, pediatricians have long been concerned about early introduction of new proteins into the immature gut and developing body of small children. Infants with colic are often switched to soy formula. Yet we have no information on how they might be affected by drinking genetically engineered soy, even though this product may be their sole or major source of nutrition for months. Because these foods are unlabeled, most parents feed their babies genetically altered formula whether they want to or not. Even proteins that are normally part of the human diet may, when introduced too early, lead to auto-immune and hypersensitivity or "allergic" reactions later.

Some studies suggest that the epidemic increase in asthma (it has doubled since 1980) may have links to early dietary exposures. The behavior problems of many children with autism and attention disorders get worse when they are exposed to certain foods. Yet as more unlabeled and untested genetically engineered foods enter the market, there is no one monitoring how the millions of people with immune system vulnerability are reacting to them and the novel proteins and fragments of viruses they can contain. In fact, without labeling, there is no possible way to track such health effects. This is not sound science, and it is not sound public health.

<>

More at link.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/14/850321/romney-monsanto/?mobile=nc

Romney And Bain Boosted Agriculture Giant Monsanto In Spite Of Toxic Past
By Aviva Shen on Sep 14, 2012 at 11:37 am

Biotechnology firm Monsanto Company, which currently owns most of the patents for America’s staple crops, is already cozy with American lawmakers. A new Nation report, however, indicates that “a very old friend in a very high place” may usher in the corporation’s most prosperous years yet.

The Nation’s investigative report ( http://www.thenation.com/article/169885/mitt-romney-monsanto-man# ) has uncovered how Mitt Romney personally helped Monsanto shed its string of toxic chemical-related scandals and reinvent itself to dominate American agriculture. Monsanto, an early Bain & Company client, was so impressed with Romney that they started bypassing his superiors to deal with him directly. Romney’s close relationship with then CEO John Hanley prompted his boss to create Bain Capital to keep Romney from leaving and taking their largest consulting client with him.

From 1977 to 1985, Romney helped navigate Monsanto through very rocky waters. The agribusiness was flooded with lawsuits after Congress banned the toxic coolant PCBs, a Monsanto product that has been linked to cancer and neurological disorders. At the same time, Monsanto’s Agent Orange toxin, used to defoliate jungles in the Vietnam War, was linked to the contamination of millions of Vietnamese and American soldiers and had been dubbed “the largest chemical warfare operation” in human history.

Tom Philpott at Mother Jones dug up a 2002 article ( http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/romney-monsanto-bain ) describing Monsanto’s attempts to hide its toxic waste disposal even after managers discovered fish “spurting blood and shedding skin” within 10 seconds of the PCB dump:

Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents—many emblazoned with warnings such as “CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy”—show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew.

Faced with costly litigation, Monsanto relied on Romney to create their new public image — one that did not involve poisoning soldiers or dumping chemicals in rivers:

Dr. Earl Beaver, who was Monsanto’s waste director during the Bain period, says that Bain was certainly “aware” of the “PCB and dioxin scandals” because they created “a negative public perception that was costing the company money.” So Bain recommended focusing “on the businesses that didn’t have those perceptions,” Beaver recalls, starting with “life science products that were biologically based,” including genetically engineered crops, as well as Roundup, the hugely profitable weed-killer. “These were the products that Bain gave their go-ahead to,” Beaver contends, noting that Romney was a key player, “reviewing the data collected by other people and developing alternatives,” talking mostly to “the higher muckety-mucks.”

<...>

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069805

Complete Genes May Pass from Food to Human Blood

Sándor Spisák mail, Norbert Solymosi, Péter Ittzés, András Bodor, Dániel Kondor, Gábor Vattay, Barbara K. Barták, Ferenc Sipos, Orsolya Galamb, Zsolt Tulassay, Zoltán Szállási, Simon Rasmussen, Thomas Sicheritz-Ponten, Søren Brunak, Béla Molnár, István Csabai

Abstract

Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system. During digestion proteins and DNA are thought to be degraded into small constituents, amino acids and nucleic acids, respectively, and then absorbed by a complex active process and distributed to various parts of the body through the circulation system. Here, based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system. In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The plant DNA concentration shows a surprisingly precise log-normal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma (cord blood) control sample was found to be free of plant DNA.

Citation: Spisák S, Solymosi N, Ittzés P, Bodor A, Kondor D, et al. (2013) Complete Genes May Pass from Food to Human Blood. PLoS ONE 8(7): e69805. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069805

Editor: Andrew Dewan, Yale School of Public Health, United States of America

Received: September 25, 2012; Accepted: June 4, 2013; Published: July 30, 2013

<>

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15007-complete-genes-can-pass-from-food-to-human-blood-study

Complete genes can pass from food to human blood - study
on 19 August 2013

A new study shows that, contrary to reassurances from industry and regulators, complete genes - including GM genes - can pass from food into human blood.

For many years, the public and scientists have been concerned that GM genes might be incorporated into animal products like meat and milk and consumed by humans.

In 2007 the European Food Safety Authority issued a reassuring statement to the effect that "a large number of experimental studies with livestock have shown that recombinant DNA fragments or proteins derived from GM plants have not been detected in tissues, fluids, or edible products of farm animals like broilers, cattle, pigs, or quails". http://www.food.gov.uk/policy-advice/gm/gmanimal#.UgnoAryE7gP

Even in 2007, EFSA's statement had already been proven false by some scientific studies: http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf
(section 3.8)

When reviewing the issue in the same year, EFSA seemed to be preparing the ground to change its advice, noting that "the recombinant [DNA] sequence is present in the GM plant only as a single or low copy number, which makes the potential absorption a rare event and therefore difficult to detect", and that "when more studies are carried out with more sensitive detection methods, such recombinant DNA fragments may be more frequently found in the future".

http://www.food.gov.uk/policy-advice/gm/gmanimal#.UgnoAryE7gP

Thus EFSA could blame its change of mind on better detection methods rather than its own poor knowledge of the science.

This year, in the face of a sizeable and growing number of scientific studies showing that DNA from food, be it GM or non-GM, can and does end up in animal tissues and milk products that people eat, the UK Food Standards Agency updated its advice. The FSA admitted, "It is … possible that DNA fragments derived from GM plant materials may occasionally be detected in animal tissues, in the same way that DNA fragments derived from non-GM plant materials can be detected in these same tissues." http://www.food.gov.uk/policy-advice/gm/gmanimal#.UgnoAryE7gP

Now the FSA and EFSA will have to revise their advice once again, as a new study by Hungarian researchers on human blood serum samples shows that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation in the digestive tract and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system.

These were not "fragments" of DNA, but stretches of plant DNA that are complete enough to enable the researchers to identify the exact plants that the human subjects ate, such as soy, maize, and oilseed rape. The researchers even found that in one of the blood serum samples the relative concentration of plant DNA was higher than the human DNA.

Interestingly, the highest concentrations of plant DNA were found in people with inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease and Kawasaki disease, an autoimmune disease in which the blood vessels become inflamed.

In light of this study, the FSA might especially like to update its earlier, quite inaccurate, advice that "Biologically active genes and proteins are common constituents of food and feed, but digestion in both animals and humans is known to rapidly degrade their DNA, and the subsequent uptake of DNA fragments from the intestinal tract into the body is a normal physiological process."

The FSA might more accurately say something like:

"Biologically active genes and proteins are common constituents of food and feed. Digestion in both animals and humans degrades the DNA to varying degrees, depending partly on disease status of the consumer. Degradation can be incomplete and fragments large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and enter the human circulatory system.

A high level of uptake of DNA fragments from the intestinal tract into the circulatory system appears to be correlated with the presence of inflammatory diseases."

We’ve always said that science would eventually prove the truth of the dictum, “You are what you eat”. Now it is time for regulatory authorities admit it.
---
---
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069805

Spisak, S., et al. (2013). Complete genes may pass from food to human blood. PLoS ONE 8(7): e69805

Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system. During digestion proteins and DNA are thought to be degraded into small constituents, amino acids and nucleic acids, respectively, and then absorbed by a complex active process and distributed to various parts of the body through the circulation system. Here, based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system. In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The plant DNA concentration shows a surprisingly precise lognormal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma (cord blood) control sample was found to be free of plant DNA.