Monsanto to end hunger in Africa (?)

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25508.cfm

Obama and Rich Nations Leave Monsanto in Charge of Ending Hunger in Africa

At the Group of Eight (G8) meetings this past weekend at Camp David, President Obama and the leaders of the rest of the world's richest nations abandoned their governments'  previous commitments to donate $7.3 billion a year to end hunger in Africa and instead left the problem in the hands of the so-called New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition where private corporations will invest $3 billion over 10 years - Monsanto has committed $50 million - beginning in three countries, Tanzania, Ghana and Ethiopia.

Leaving the  problem of hunger in the hand of multinationals like Monsanto and Cargill will only exacerbate the conditions already driving poverty in Africa - rich  countries' protectionism, land-grabbing, commodity speculation, food  waste, and diversion of crops to livestock feed and biofuels - and  ratchet up the costs of farming for small farmers by encouraging the use  of expensive and unsustainable GMO seeds, pesticides and fertilizers.

Read what food policy experts have to say about ending hunger in Africa.

Learn More & Take Action

TAKE ACTION:http://www.dakarappeal.org/index.php/en/

OCA on Obama's betrayal

Monsanto's GE Alfalfa: Obama's Organic Betrayal

ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION

In last week's Bytes, we made the case that the Organic Elite had betrayed the organic community when they naively sat down to cut a deal for "coexistence" with the USDA, essentially giving up on confronting Monsanto where it matters: in the market (including Whole Foods Market), where unlabeled GMO and factory-farmed foods are routinely purchased by unwitting consumers. OCA chided Organic Inc. for abandoning grassroots "activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions" and internalizing the defeatist notion "that the battle against GMOs has been lost."

At nearly the very moment Bytes was broadcast to our members, news came that President Obama and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack had betrayed the organic industry. As OCA expected, Vilsack, apparently on direct orders from the White House, abandoned the idea of "controlled deregulation" for something much more Monsanto-friendly. Monsanto's controversial RoundUp Ready alfalfa will likely be planted this spring and - like all of the biotech industry's GMOs - it remains untested, unregulated, unrestricted, and unlabeled. It seems that Obama has elected to joins the ranks of Monsanto Minions, just like Bush Jr., Clinton, and Bush Sr. before him.

The good news is that the organic industry is finally showing some anger and passion! In the wake of this betrayal foretold, the Organic Trade Association published an open letter condemning Vilsack's decision, signed by United Natural Foods Inc. (UNFI), Stonyfield Farm, Organic Valley, as well as a host of organic advocacy groups and individuals, including Michael Pollan. Here's the letter:

We Stand in Opposition to GE Alfalfa!

The Organic Trade Association also finally criticized Obama directly:

"The hope ignited by electing a president that would represent the people, against special interests and business as usual in Washington, was sadly extinguished when your office chose sides. As quoted by Maureen Dowd in Sunday's New York Times, your chief advisor David Axelrod offered a parting pun to "plow forward" on genetically engineered alfalfa, before heading off to get you re-elected. The cynicism of biotech lobbyists has penetrated the inner most sanctum of your White House and I am deeply disappointed. ... Since GE it is not currently labeled or tracked in our food supply, it is impossible to conduct long-term studies on the link between GE and human health problems.

"I want to be able to choose whether the foods I eat contain genetically engineered ingredients. When it comes to GE crops in America, I will vote for choice both at the grocery store and at the polls in 2012."

Why Is the Obama Administration Parroting Monsanto Talking Points?

Something's very wrong when the chief scientist at the USDA says we'll have to start farming parks, forests and golf courses if we don't switch to biotech.

July 19, 2010 |

When key government officials start touting the need for biotechnology there's reason to be concerned. Roger Beachy, the Chief Scientist of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), recently told Smartplanet.com that biotechnology is needed to maximize food production and reduce the use of agrochemicals. "With a greater number of people," he said, "we're going to have to have more crop per acre. If we don't, we'll have to expand [agriculture] to our parks, forests, and golf courses." And at first it might seem strange to hear a top government official parroting talking points from Monsanto's Corporate Responsibility page ... until you read his resume, that is. His last job before joining the USDA was as founding president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, a non-profit research institute co-founded by Monsanto and the Danforth Foundation.

Now, another explanation why Monsanto and Roger Beachy have similar talking points could be that both are correct and they are simply explaining the facts about the future of food and agriculture. Do we really need biotech to feed a growing population?

Nope, turns out that we don't. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, genetically engineered (GE) seeds, to date, don't translate to more crop yields. And worse, GE seeds have meant the uses of more, not less, chemicals. Jack Heinemann, a professor of genetics and molecular biology, agrees. He points out that no GE crops, to date, were designed with the goal of increasing yield, and while "yield benefits have been observed" they've occurred "sporadically and in a year-, location-, and crop-dependent manner." He does not find evidence for decreased pesticide use in GE crops either.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE: http://www.alternet.org/story/147582/why_is_the_obama_administration_parroting_monsanto_talking_points/

From the Organic Consumers Association

Dupont Dame Follows Monsanto Men Into Obama Administration

Starting with his choice for USDA Secretary, the pro-biotech former governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, President Obama has let Monsanto, Dupont and the other pesticide and genetic engineering companies know they'll have plenty of friends and supporters within his administration.

President Obama has taken his team of food and farming leaders directly from the biotech companies and their lobbying, research, and philanthropic arms.

Michael Taylor, former Monsanto Vice President, is now the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods.

Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto-funded Danforth Plant Science Center, is now the director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Islam Siddiqui, Vice President of the Monsanto and Dupont-funded pesticide-promoting lobbying group, CropLife, is now the Agriculture Negotiator for the US Trade Representative.

Rajiv Shah, former Gates Foundation agricultural-development director served as Obama's USDA Under Secretary for Research Education and Economics and Chief Scientist and is now head of USAID.

Now, Ramona Romero, corporate counsel to Dupont, has been nominated by President Obama to serve as General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Tell Your Senators to Reject Ramona Romero and President Obama to Get Monsanto and Dupont Out of His Administration!

Take Action

Scandal of the Week

Ethanol and Animal Feed from Monsanto's Genetically Engineered (GE) Corn Are the Biggest Culprits in Gulf Dead Zone

While the BP oil spill has been labeled the worst environmental catastrophe in recent U.S. history, a biofuel is contributing to a Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" the size of New Jersey that scientists say could be every bit as harmful to the gulf.

Each year, nitrogen used to fertilize corn, about a third of which is made into ethanol, leaches from Midwest croplands into the Mississippi River and out into the gulf, where the fertilizer feeds giant algae blooms. As the algae dies, it settles to the ocean floor and decays, consuming oxygen and suffocating marine life.

Known as hypoxia, the oxygen depletion kills shrimp, crabs, worms and anything else that cannot escape. The dead zone has doubled since the 1980s and is expected this year to grow as large as 8,500 square miles and hug the Gulf Coast from Alabama to Texas.

Read More

PLEASE DONATE!

OCA Needs Your Help to Fight Monsanto and Spread the Organic Revolution

OCA and our growing network of organic consumers and farmers understand that we have a positive life-affirming solution for the global food, health, and climate crisis: organic food, farming, and ranching. But to fight Monsanto and Big Food and get out our all-important message we need your support. Please send us a tax-deductible donation today and we'll send you a free "Millions Against Monsanto" bumper sticker so you can help spread the word in your community. Please be sure to put 'sticker' in the comments field of your donation.

PLEASE DONATE

Obama's Controversial Trade Appointment Slipped Through Unchallenged

http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2010/05/06/obamas-controversial-trade-appointment-slipped-through-unchallenged/

By Boris Gitlin

Pushing past the dismay and obstructionism of Republicans, President Obama recently announced 15 recess appointments to various government posts. While most Democrats cheered this move as a firm demonstration of Obama’s resolve and a break from months of legislative drama, certain appointments left many disappointed. While many environmental and sustainability advocates decried the nomination of Dr. Islam “Isi” Siddiqui as the chief agricultural negotiator in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, by and large, his appointment slipped through with little notice.

As a former BigAg lobbyist and an executive at a major industry trade association, Mr. Siddiqui is an inside PR man for the biotech agriculture and pesticide industry. His appointment flies in the face of environmental groups who have cheered the progressive agenda championed by Obama during his presidential campaign.

How deep are Siddiqui’s industry roots? Most recently, Siddiqui served as a Vice President for Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife America (”CLA”), a trade association representing pesticide and biotech seed industries. He has also worked as a registered lobbyist for CLA between 2001 and 2003, while advocating for the interests of companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Dow Chemical. Although no longer a registered lobbyist, thus apparently skidding by Obama’s pledge to keep lobbyists out of government, as a key executive at CLA, Siddiqui was in a unique position of influence. Working at the trade association that petitioned Congress, EPA, and USDA on behalf of the large agri-businesses, he helped spread pro-business talking points about the hotly contested benefits of genetically modified crops and pesticides.

Siddiqui’s cozy industry relationships, however, were not properly examined during his confirmation process, which shed little light on Siddiqui’s role in the overall lobbying effort of CLA. As was reportedby Pesticide Action Network, during his testimony in front of the Senate Finance Committee on November 4th 2009, Dr. Siddiqui sidestepped questions about the extent of his work at CLA and about “his former employers’ aggressive lobbying [efforts] to weaken international regulations over toxic pesticides, expand allowances for pesticide testing on children and keep persistent and acutely toxic pesticides such as endosulfan on the market, despite a global movement towards a ban.”

Siddiqui rightly chose to downplay his role at CLA. After all, who wants to publicly examine his former employer’s formidable influence on the government. CropLife America is a major agricultural lobbying group that spent about $2 million dollars in each of the last 3 years buying influence among receptive ears in Washington on behalf of their members. They were and remain one of the biggest spenders in the agricultural and pesticide industry lobby, outspent only by — you guessed it — Monsanto.

The strong criticism and opposition to Siddiqui’s nomination and appointment, if only by the concerned minority, is best captured by the following quote from a letter submitted by a coalition of 98 environmental, health, and trade associations to members of U.S. Senate, that stated:

We need a new, sustainable model of biodiverse, ecologically-based agriculture that regenerates soil health, sequesters carbon, feeds communities, protects farm workers and puts profits back in the hands of family farmers and rural communities. Siddiqui’s track record shows that he favors none of these solutions.

Dr. Siddiqui public positions touting the increased use of biotechnology and pesticides as a way to lower food costs, increase yields, and lower the use of high-priced inputs, belie the reality. In fact, the prices of biotech seeds from companies represented by Dr. Siddiqui have skyrocketed and prompted an investigation by the Department of Justice and seven other states. The claims of lower pesticide use have been debunked and increased yields of genetically modified crops over conventional crops have been widely disputed. In fact, the yield increases from abroad attributed to GMOs are a clever marketing ploy since the industry acknowledges that domestic biotech crop yields haven’t demonstrated improvements over conventional crops. The improvements in harvests domestically and abroad, as well as the growth of American agricultural exports, can be accomplished with conventional and local crop varieties coupled with existing sustainable agricultural practices that benefit farming communities without the pricey and needless inputs. That’s precisely why our agricultural trade policies need a sensible and balanced leader, not an biotech industry man.

Dr. Siddiqui’s previosuly-held positions offer the wrong prescription for sustainable agricultural growth. Rather than “helping the poor farmer” as the industry promises, the result of global GMO promotion has been the destruction of small farming communities as land is concentrated in fewer hands. While some consolidation is inevitable as agricultural outputs overseas grow, small farmers in poor nations are at a particular disadvantage when asked to grow GM crops due to licensing limitations and higher prices. In the meantime, the corporate rush for agricultural profits and lax regulatory regimes of developing countries spur popular discontent and grow economic inequality around the world. We see this situation repeated as GM crops are adopted in Argentina, Brazil, India and other countries around the world.

And in case you are wondering, prior to working at CLA, Dr. Siddiqui was an Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs in the Department of Agriculture during the Clinton’s administration. He was instrumental in leading the very controversial first phase of development for national organic natural food standards in the United States. During his tenure, he rejected the GMO labeling efforts as misleading, led USDA’s efforts to attempt to allow genetically modified foods to be labeled “organic,” and criticized Japan’s and, later in his career, European Union’s consumer-minded precautionary approach to GMOs.

Since 2004, Dr. Siddiqui has also served on the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, and Health/Science Products & Services, which advises the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative on international trade issues related to these sectors. Before joining USDA, Dr. Siddiqui spent 28 years with the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Sorry Mr. President, but appointing Dr. Siddiqui runs against your pledge of keeping lobbyists out of your administration and against your pledge to help the poor farmers around the world. It gives responsibility over our agricultural trade policies to a biotech agriculture and pesticide industry insider, sends the wrong message on sustainability and environment to our trade partners, and continues business as usual in Washington.

For shame!

Stop Siddiqui

98 Organizations Oppose Obama's Monsanto Man, Islam Siddiqui, for US Agricultural Trade Representative

• By Dr. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network, and Katherine Ozer, Executive Director, National Family Farm Coalition
  February 22, 2010
  Straight to the Source
  
  

CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION

A large coalition of groups – including the Organic Consumers Association – has been fighting since the fall to block Obama's nomination of CropLife/biotech industry rep and former pesticide lobbyist, Islam Siddiqui, to the position of Chief Ag Negotiator at the US Office of the Trade Rep. The nomination was approved by the Senate Finance Committee, but is stalled in the Senate. It could go to a Senate floor vote any day now. The coalition sent the following letter to the Senate on February 22, 2010. If you would like to send a letter to your Senator, please click here.

Dear Senator:

The following 98 organizations are writing you to express our opposition to the nomination of Islam Siddiqui as Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative. Our organizations— representing family farmers, farmworkers, fishers and sustainable agriculture, environmental, consumer, anti-hunger and other advocacy groups—urge you to reject Dr. Siddiqui’s appointment when it comes up for a floor vote, despite the Senate Finance Committee's favorable report of his nomination on December 23, 2009.

Siddiqui’s record at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and his role as a former registered lobbyist for CropLife America (whose members include Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Dow), has revealed him to consistently favor agribusinesses’ interests over the interests of consumers, the environment and public health (see attached fact sheet). We believe Siddiqui’s nomination severely weakens the Obama Administration’s credibility in promoting healthier and more sustainable local food systems here at home. His appointment would also send an unfortunate signal to the rest of the world that the United States plans to continue down the failed path of high-input and energy-intensive industrial agriculture by promoting toxic pesticides, inappropriate seed biotechnologies and unfair trade agreements on nations that do not want and can least afford them.

The United States urgently needs a trade negotiator who understands that current trade agreements work neither for farmers nor the world’s hungry. With farmers here and abroad struggling to respond to water scarcity and increasingly volatile growing conditions, we need a resilient and restorative model of agriculture that adapts to and mitigates climate change and that moves us towards energy-efficient farming.

The most comprehensive analysis of global agriculture to date, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) states unequivocally that “business as usual is not an option.” We need a new, sustainable model of biodiverse, ecologically-based agriculture that regenerates soil health, sequesters carbon, feeds communities, protects farmworkers and puts profits back in the hands of family farmers and rural communities. Siddiqui’s track record shows that he favors none of these solutions.

We call on the Senate to reject Islam Siddiqui’s nomination and reorient trade policy to serve the interests of family farmers, farmworkers, consumers and the planet.

Sincerely,

President Obama agriculture picks sow confusion

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32812_Page2.html

EXCERPT:

Roger Beachy, the new director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which has a $1.3 billion budget for research grants, comes from the Danforth Plant Science Center, funded through gifts from the Monsanto Fund, among others.

In an interview, Beachy said the institute will support all methods of farming: production, conventional or organic.

But he also said something about food safety that has small farmers quaking: “Scientific standards for food safety regulations should be the same across all farming systems. They should apply to big farms and small farms, including organic farms.”

******

Beachy has also described genetically engineered crops as sustainable. “The science of biotech is extremely important in feeding an ever-growing population around the world,” he said. “I don’t think sustainability should be limited to organic and local.”

Dave Murphy, founder and director of Food Democracy Now, a grass-roots organization that promotes sustainability, is angered by the effort to co-opt the word. “GMOs are not sustainable,” he said. “The problem with GMOs is that they have not provided higher yields and lower pesticide use.”

Another administration appointment, Islam “Isi” Siddiqui, who’s been nominated to become the chief negotiator on agriculture issues in global markets, was a pesticide lobbyist for the nation’s most powerful agrichemical lobby group.

As special assistant for trade to the agriculture secretary in 1999, he told the Japanese he did not want them to label GMOs. “We do not believe that obligatory GMO labeling is necessary, because it would suggest a health risk where there is none,” he said. “Mandatory labeling could mislead consumers about the safety of these products.”

Michael Taylor is back

http://www.counterpunch.org/kenfield08142009.html

Monsanto's Man in the Obama Administration

By ISABELLA KENFIELD

Michael R. Taylor’s appointment by the Obama administration to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on July 7th sparked immediate debate and even outrage among many food and agriculture researchers, NGOs and activists. The Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto Corp. from 1998 until 2001, Taylor exemplifies the revolving door between the food industry and the government agencies that regulate it. He is reviled for shaping and implementing the government’s favorable agricultural biotechnology policies during the Clinton administration.
Yet what has slipped under everyone’s radar screen is Taylor’s involvement in setting U.S. policy on agricultural assistance in Africa. In collusion with the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates foundations, Taylor is once again the go-between man for Monsanto and the U.S. government, this time with the goal to open up African markets for genetically-modified (GM) seed and agrochemicals.

Spilling the Beans, March 2009
(Reproduced from Jeffrey Smith’s blog on Huffington Post.)

---

Subscribe to e-newsletter Spilling the Beans

---

Will Obama's Food Safety Team Finally Regulate the Biggest Food Safety Hazard of Our Time

If President Obama's new Food Safety Working Group dedicates all their time and credentials to prevent future food recalls, they will have saved thousands of people--but forsaken millions.

Over the last decade, our radically changing diet has ushered in the explosive growth of food-related ailments, such as allergies, asthma, obesity, diabetes, autism, infertility, gastro-intestinal disorders, and learning disabilities. Of all the changes in our food, the most dangerous transformation was the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops.

When these gene-spliced concoctions, such as GM soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed, came on the scene in 1996, the proportion of Americans suffering from three or more chronic ailments. After just 9 years, that nearly doubled to 13%. GM foods are the prime suspect.

Government policy at odds with science

Until now, the government has sidestepped the controversy by hiding behind FDA policy, which asserts that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are "substantially equivalent" to natural foods and therefore don't require any safety studies. But as Obama acknowledged, "many of the laws and regulations governing food safety in America" are outdated.

In truth, the FDA's GMO policy was not even up-to-date when it was implemented in May 1992. FDA documents made public from a lawsuit revealed that virtually all the agency scientists asked to comment voiced strong warnings that GMOs may cause serious health problems. But the FDA was under orders from the White House to fast track GM foods, and the person in charge of FDA policy was the former attorney of biotech giant Monsanto--and later become their vice president. The scientists and the science were ignored.

Now that animals fed GMOs--in labs and farms around the world--have exhibited symptoms related to the growing list of diseases in the US population, the President's Food Safety team, including Dr. Margaret Hamburg as FDA Commissioner, must update GMO regulation. A scientifically sound regulation would translate into an immediate ban of current GM crops, and the implementation of rigorous safety testing requirements before any GMO was put back into the food supply. And certainly mandatory labeling, as promised by President Obama during his campaign, must accompany any GM food approval.

Presidents and industry insiders avoid GMOs

The Obama family has wisely opted out of exposing themselves to GM foods by requiring organic--and therefore non-GMO--foods served at the White House. They are even planting an organic garden on the south lawn of the White House, to feature 55 types of vegetables.

The Bush family also had an organic kitchen policy. Laura Bush was "adamant" about it, but kept it all quiet.

Even at Monsanto, many in-the-know employees won't consume the company's own GM creations. Back in 1999, the management of the cafeteria at Monsanto's UK headquarters in High Wycombe, England wrote:

"In response to concern raised by our customers . . . we have decided to remove, as far as possible, genetically modified soy and maize (corn) from all food products served in our restaurant. . . . We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve."

And one former Monsanto scientist told me that his colleagues, who were safety testing milk from cows injected with the company's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, decided to stop drinking milk--unless it was organic.

It's now time to let us all opt out of this dangerous and failed GM experiment. If Obama's team is serious about food safety and public health, they must take GMOs off our plates and put them back into the laboratory.

---

© copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2009.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of publication Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65 risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology www.responsibletechnology.org, which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to www.responsibletechnology.org to learn more about how to avoid GM foods.

---

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org. The website also offers eater-friendly tips for avoiding GMOs at home and in restaurants.

Permission is granted to publishers and webmasters to reproduce issues of Spilling the Beans in whole or in part. Just email us at column@seedsofdeception.com to let us know who you are and what your circulation is, so we can keep track.

The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to end the genetic engineering of our food supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. We warmly welcome your donations and support.

Go to www.responsibletechnology.org or click here if you'd like to make a tax-deductible donation. Click here if you would like to become a member of the Institute.

Obama también debe detener la locura de los agrocombustibles

Agrocombustibles a partir de alimentos

Por favor, apoye a las organizaciones ambientales y de justicia social norteamericanas, que hacen un llamamiento a la nueva administración de Obama, para que detenga el apoyo financiero y político a la producción de agrocombustibles a gran escala. En particular, el apoyo del gobierno a la expansión de los agrocombustibles, es decir, la elaboración de combustibles para el transporte a partir de alimentos, que se dirige en contra de su objetivo de detener urgentemente el cambio climático, y amenaza con causar más deforestación, hambre, violaciones de derechos humanos y degradación de suelos y aguas.

La administración de Obama prometió reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero e impulsar la energía renovable. Desafortunadamente, gran parte de la solución propuesta implica continuar impulsando la producción de agrocombustibles, tanto en los Estados Unidos como en el exterior. La nueva administración debe tomar en cuenta la evidencia de que los agrocombustibles empeoran el cambio climático con más deforestación y destrucción de otros ecosistemas. Además, provocan el aumento de los precios, empujando a más y más personas a pasar hambre y malnutrición. También destruyen la biodiversidad y los ecosistemas.

Salva la Selva se preocupa por la industria creciente del etanol en Norteamérica, y las implicaciones que tiene, estableciendo un precedente para la industrialización masiva de la agricultura en los pocos bosques que quedan en el mundo, así como en otros ecosistemas. Formamos parte del consenso ecológico de que la producción industrial a gran escala de combustibles para el transporte y otras formas de energía a partir de plantas como el maíz, la caña de azúcar, la palma aceitera, la soja, árboles, pastos, o los denominados residuos agrícolas y forestales pone en peligro a los bosques, la biodiversidad y la soberanía alimentaria, los derechos territoriales comunitarios y agravará el cambio climático.

Más información:
Carta Abierta de organizaciones norteamericanas (en inglés):

http://www.globaljusticeecology.org/connections.php?ID=244

Lea aqui la traducción de la carta al presidente Obama al español

Biotech under Barack

- Jeffrey L Fox, Nature Biotechnology 27, 237 - 244 (2009)

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n3/full/nbt0309-237.html

The Obama administration looks to be a welcome shot in the arm for the scientific endeavor, but the current economic crisis is likely to keep several issues of key interest to biotech firmly on the back burner.

"With this president, a lot of policies are going to change, and a number of them are likely to be exciting for us," says Willy De Greef, secretary general of EuropaBio (Brussels). He points to USDA Secretary Vilsack as but one example of Obama appointments that look positive for biotech. The new USDA secretary "understands what biotech crops can do and has a deep interest in putting agriculture in play, including for energy independence and biofuels," De Greef says. Although no details are available, he adds, Vilsack's attitudes toward and familiarity with biotech-related agriculture issues "are very good for our sector."

The appointment of Vilsack is "nothing but positive for biotechnology," says Val Giddings, a Washington-based industry consultant and former USDA official. "There's not been an ag [USDA] secretary who comes in so familiar with biotech issues and who doesn't have to be briefed for the first time, but is favorably disposed to biotech for farmers. Plus, he respects data and evidence." As for Energy Secretary Chu, Giddings says, "He can't help but advance the [DOE] biotech portfolio. There will be greater openness, and it's nothing but positive."

"On the food side, I expect biotechnology to be a fairly unimportant issue for the next couple of years," says Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Instead, he and others recognize that conventional safety issues, with the salmonella-laced peanut butter problem the most recent example, will be predominant. One exception directly involving biotech could be a move to reinstate a premarket notification rule for genetically engineered plants, a move that was blocked by Bush but could be brought back by the Obama administration. "There is no reason to think the [Obama] administration would go toward more deregulation, much to my chagrin," he says.

What happens with biofuel development ties in with developments and policies affecting agriculture and, here again, Obama's selection of Tom Vilsack for USDA secretary is drawing praise from biotech analysts. "Agbiotech is regarded as important, but let's have no illusions," says Washington-based consultant Giddings. "The economy and Middle East are first-tier issues, and Vilsack won't get Obama's attention for quite a while. And, even if they [administration officials] could be specific about agbiotech, they wouldn't because they will set it on the shelf and get to it once they deal with other stuff."

In terms of regulatory policies affecting genetically modified crops, little is expected to change anytime soon during the Obama presidency, except perhaps for a greater emphasis on transparency. "It is likely that the Obama administration will be more open than Bush's to a wide range of stakeholders," says Gregory Jaffe, who directs the Biotechnology Project at the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest. More generally, the new administration is more likely to seek additional regulatory authority or even to ask Congress to amend laws in cases where rule-making becomes too much of a stretch for those already on the books. However, he adds, with so many other pressing food-safety issues to face having to do with microbially or chemically contaminated products, "I don't think biotech foods will be high on Obama's agenda."

"Expect more scrutiny of new varieties and more disclosures and transparency about biotechnology in food and agriculture," agrees Mark Mansour, an attorney with Bryan Cave (Washington, DC, USA). He, too, does not anticipate "much change" from recent policies in the near term, except for "some concessions to watchdog groups. But this will take a while, and will be expressed in due course."

One area where agricultural policy might change course is internationally, particularly with Secretary of State Clinton revitalizing international outreach programs, according to Mansour. This could take shape as an "aggressive engagement of USDA and USAID [Agency for International Development] with developing countries in Africa and other parts of the world, using agriculture as a means of engagement," he says. Unlike the Bush administration, for which such programs were, at best, "an adjunct to security, this [Obama] administration could see agricultural biotechnology as a constructive tool." Of course, "there will be obstacles to overcome, but a lot of opposition to biotechnology could melt with a prolonged recession."

"We're spending about $22 billion per year for the region [Africa], and candidate Obama called for doubling resources, and to put agricultural resources among the top ten," says Robert Paarlberg of Wellesley College (Wellesley, MA, USA), and author of Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept out of Africa. "Science-based assistance does seem to have a voice." However, biotech will not soon make inroads into African agriculture because so many countries there remain dominated by Europe through custom and because Europe provides them much more assistance than does the United States, he adds. Thus, although USAID "has tried to throw its weight around, that doesn't work in Africa."

"The EU approach has helped keep African countries from adopting GM [genetically modified] crops," agrees De Greef of EuropaBio. "We hope if the EU and US become less adversarial, it could remove pressure from Africa, which feels forced to choose between US or EU regulations."

In terms of global agbiotech disputes, there are "tricky dossiers" to be faced, De Greef says. Even though the US won a round against the EU in a long-standing World Trade Organization (Geneva) case about genetically modified organism imports, "no official appeal" from the EU has been filed yet, he says. "If EU does not appeal or comply, the US, Argentina and Canada can take unilateral measures, but the US probably will prefer to negotiate, which seems more Obama's style. I'd like to see agreements rather than litigation, and a real victory would be to have science-based regulations."

Los combustibles “verdes” de Obama

Silvia Ribeiro

La Jornada

Durante su campaña Barack Obama, presidente electo de Estados Unidos, promovió continuamente los agro- combustibles como parte de su “nueva economía verde”. Obvió la creciente cantidad de estudios que muestran que los agrocombustibles tienen una eficiencia energética negativa (usan más combustibles fósiles de los que dicen suplantar, empeorando las causas del cambio climático), que compiten con la producción alimentaria (por los cultivos, tierra, agua y nutrientes) y que para alcanzar las metas de uso de “biocombustibles”, no alcanza con la producción en Estados Unidos, por lo que fríamente se cuenta con la producción de granos en países del sur, donde se agravan todos los problemas anteriores. Actualmente, Estados Unidos dedica la tercera parte de su producción de maíz para etanol.

La elección y próximo nombramiento de Tom Vilsack como secretario de Agricultura y Steven Chu como secretario de Energía, revelan que la política de la administración Obama será no solamente continuar con esta dañina industria, a la que ya aseguró nuevos subsidios –que solamente beneficiarán a las transnacionales del sector–, sino también promover agresivamente el desarrollo de nuevas y más riesgosas generaciones de agrocombustibles, basadas en nuevos cultivos transgénicos y biología sintética (seres vivos diseñados con genes artificiales).

Tom Vilsack, ex gobernador de Iowa, fue nombrado en 2001, “gobernador del año” por la Organización de la Industria Biotecnológica (BIO, que agrupa a mil 200 empresas biotecnológicas a escala global, incluyendo Monsanto y las demás que monopolizan los transgénicos), “por su apoyo al crecimiento económico de esta industria”. Anteriormente, había fundado una asociación (Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership) para promover los transgénicos con los otros gobernadores. En 2002 defendió fieramente el uso de maíz para producir fármacos, e incluso criticó a la propia industria, que obligada por las críticas públicas y escándalos de contaminación con ese maíz no comestible, había anunciado una restricción voluntaria de los farmacultivos. Con igual entusiasmo defendió la clonación de vacas lecheras. El apoyo no fue solamente discursivo. Durante su gobierno, Trans Ova Genetics, dedicada a la clonación de vacas lecheras, recibió 9 millones de dólares en subsidios y ProdiGene, la empresa multada en 2002 por contaminación con maíz farmacéutico, recibió 6 millones de las arcas del estado. En 2005 fue el autor intelectual de una ley que restringe el derecho de los gobiernos locales a regular los transgénicos. No sorprende que sea también un entusiasta defensor de los agrocombustibles transgénicos de maíz y soya. Sólo faltaba el elemento realmente “innovador”, que aportará el nuevo secretario de energía, Steven Chu.

Chu es físico y premio Nobel. Viene del Laboratorio Nacional Lawrence Berkeley, donde dirige un proyecto de energía, cuya meta es “producir tecnologías transformadoras en nanotecnología y biología sintética”. Sus principales colaboradores son industriales de la biología sintética. Jay Keasling, fundador de Amyris Biotech, es codirector del proyecto. En una presentación reciente ante el Comité de Energía y Recursos Naturales del Senado de Estados Unidos (Science News, 13/1/09) Chu se declaró dispuesto a desarrollar la industria nuclear y a continuar el uso de carbón a gran escala, siempre que se siguieran desarrollando proyectos de secuestro de carbono. O sea, seguir creando gases de efecto invernadero, pero promoviendo el jugoso negocio –inútil para prevenir el cambio climático– del comercio de emisiones de carbono. Pero en lo que se mostró realmente apasionado, es en el desarrollo de una “cuarta generación de biocombustibles”, a partir de biología sintética, proyecto en el que ha estado trabajando desde hace dos años. Se trata, explicó, de microbios “entrenados” –leáse manipulados con biología sintética, o sea mucho peor que solamente transgénicos– para transformar cualquier tipo de azúcares, no sólo en etanol, sino también en “sustitutos similares a la gasolina, diesel y combustible de jets”. Aseguró que se podría usar cualquier materia prima, como residuos de maíz y otros cultivos, pero lo interesante serían cultivos para forraje y otros para producir etanol celulósico (que necesariamente requieren biología sintética y transgénicos para ser procesados).

Lo único realmente verde de estas nuevas generaciones de combustibles será el dinero que ya están viendo las grandes industrias de los transgénicos, agronegocios, petroleras y farmacéuticas, que son los inversores y asociados de las compañías de biología sintética. Como son trasnacionales no es un problema sólo estadunidense: esto es el impulso que buscaban para expandir estas nuevas tecnologías contaminantes al resto del mundo. En México, la presión por sembrar nuevos maíces transgénicos y farmacultivos, crecerá “oficialmente”. La empresa de Keasling, Amyris, ya tiene contratos en Brasil con grandes productores de caña de azúcar. Lo que nos legará un aumento de la disputa por tierras y agua, los residuos y contaminación transgénicas y los nuevos riesgos de los microbios sintéticos.

*investigadora del Grupo ETC

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell/obamas-choice-of-vilsack_b_153213.html?view=screen

Andrew Kimbrell: Obama's Choice of Vilsack AgriBusiness as Usual at USDA?

Subdued approval greeted President-elect Obama's choice of Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture last week. This came from mainstream environmental groups, such as Sierra Club, and even organizations that have been critical in the past of the Iowa governor's policies. Vilsack comes across in nearly all of the stories written last Tuesday and Wednesday as a solid choice, someone reliable from a farm state who understands farmers.

But, a day or two later the complexion of the Vilsack nomination had changed somewhat. First, the announcement was made in a slightly odd fashion, leaked out ahead of time, as though the Obama transition team were expecting some flak for their choice. In addition, Vilsack -- notably -- had removed himself from the running before jumping back in just prior to his selection by the president-elect.

Today, the lukewarm reception Vilsack initially received has turned into real heat as the Obama transition team finds itself in the fire over the former Governor's appointment. President-elect Obama identified Vilsack as representative of the kind of "new leadership" Washington needs. But now, even those who initially greeted the nomination with some enthusiasm are wondering if Vilsack isn't a signal of business as usual at the USDA, and beyond.

First of all -- as Politico reports -- there is the farm subsidy money that Vilsack has received over time from USDA. According to the piece, from 2000 to 2006, Vilsack and his wife collected $42,782 in subsidies from USDA. In addition, "Vilsack is a partner at a lobbying law firm (Dorsey & Whitney) that trumpeted his advice to clients on agribusiness development and renewable energy -- a job that appears to bump up against Obama's promise to bar appointees from working on issues related to their employment for two years." The former Governor recognizes the conflict of interests, and claims he will do everything he can to address the problem, and if he must, he will forgo the payments.

If only that was the sole reason to question the choice of Vilsack; $42K may not be enough of a figure to inspire concern. Vilsack's positions on biotechnology and ethanol are far more troubling.

For those of us who have serious health and environmental concerns about genetically engineered (GE) crops, cloning, and industrial agriculture in general, it would be difficult to pick someone with a worse track record. Vilsack was even named "Governor of the Year" by the Biotechnology Industry Organization for his "support of the industry's economic growth." Small wonder. Under Governor Vilsack, the state of Iowa invested millions of dollars of taxpayer funds in dubious biotechnology start-ups, such as cow cloner Trans Ova Genetics ($9 million) and pharmaceutical corn developer, ProdiGene, Inc. ($6 million). Iowa's investment in ProdiGene was particularly unfortunate. The company not only proved a financial failure, but in 2002, an Iowa cornfield that became contaminated with the company's genetically engineered pharma corn had to be destroyed. One hopes Mr. Vilsack has learned from this experience. He also supported (some say instigated) a bill in 2005 that pre-empted cities and counties from regulating GE crops more strictly than the state or federal government. On biotechnology policy, Vilsack is far from the visionary we had hoped for.

Vilsack has also been a big supporter of ethanol, as is President-elect Obama. On this issue, they're clearly in synch, but their enthusiasm is terribly misplaced. The latest science demonstrates clearly that corn-based ethanol exacerbates rather than mitigates global warming, while so-called "cellulosic" ethanol from crop waste and prairie grass (which might have value, the jury is still out) is years away from commercial use. Even some of ethanol's strongest supporters in Congress, like Senator Tom Harkin, have come to question corn-based ethanol. President-Elect Obama and Mr. Vilsack should make elimination of federal subsidies for corn-to-ethanol -- which now total several billion dollars per year -- a top priority.

However, Vilsack has made some promises that are easy to rally behind. He says he supports biotech firm liability in cases of contamination episodes. He has also said that USDA should require companies to demonstrate no harm to markets for conventional and organic crops before approving new GE crops.

All this would be welcome, but so far, there is little to indicate that Mr. Vilsack would be the watchdog so promised. There is increasing disappointment in the choice, so we must watch his actions to see if he deserves the public's trust. If he fails on any pledge, it's up to consumers, farmers, and lawmakers to hold his feet to the fire. Ultimately, it is the President-elect's food, farm and energy policies that will guide the USDA in the new administration. While not perfect, there is much promise in these policies.

There were high hopes that Obama would choose a Secretary who would bring real change to the beleaguered USDA. Though more progressive candidates were passed over, Tom Vilsack may not prove to be the AgriBusiness-as-Usual choice that his record would suggest. Some who know him say he is a good listener, and we should not rule out the possibility of change. A president elected on a platform of change needs to implement it nowhere more urgently than in food and farm policy. This nation needs nothing short of a New Green Deal to reverse the Bush administration's abysmal food safety record and assault on the environment through its promotion of industrial agriculture. Although we remain hopeful with the choice of Tom Vilsack, we also have to remain very alert.

U.S. Agriculture Nominee Attracts Controversy

by Ben Block on December 19, 2008

Photo courtesy change.gov

USDA Secretary nominee Tom Vilsack stands alongside Interior Department nominee Ken Salazar (right) and President-elect Barack Obama (left).

President-elect Barack Obama nominated the former governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, to serve as his secretary of agriculture earlier this week.

If approved, Vilsack will oversee the world's most productive farmlands, and therefore, some of the world's most daunting environmental challenges. The U.S. Department of Agriculture will influence decisions of ethanol production and global food shortages, growing meat demand and livestock-related greenhouse gases, genetically modified organisms and organic agriculture, rural poverty and agribusiness consolidation.

Vilsack critics say he supported larger farms more than local, organic food production during his two decades in government. Yet observers from Iowa also describe the Democrat as a centrist who balanced the demands of farmers, environmentalists, and industry groups.

"I honestly believe he will listen to a broad sense of voices, having been through a lot here in Iowa," said Jerry DeWitt, director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University.

The nomination angered some environmental groups, mostly from the organic community, because of Vilsack's support for large agribusiness and biotechnology.

"Vilsack's nomination sends the message that dangerous, untested, unlabeled genetically engineered crops will be the norm in the Obama Administration," said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the Organic Consumers Association, in a press release.

Vilsack signed legislation in 2005 that preempted local cities and counties from restricting the sale of genetically modified seeds. Yet, according to the Center for Rural Affairs, he reportedly said biotechnology corporations should prove their products are safe before the seeds become available on the market - a more stringent requirement than the law currently states.

The organic association also opposes Vilsack's nomination for his record on "aiding and abetting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations." When Vilsack was governor from 1998-2006, the number of hogs per farm in Iowa - the No.1 live animal exporter in the nation - rose from about 800 to more than 1,800 [PDF]. Meanwhile, the number of hog farms fell almost 50 percent.

As a state senator, Vilsack voted for a 1995 law that almost excluded livestock operations from public nuisance lawsuits because of significant demands on the plaintiffs. The Iowa Supreme Court later overturned the law as "flagrantly unconstitutional."

"We continue not to really come forward and recognize the impacts of more and more concentration of animals in our state," said Susan Heathcote, water program director for the Iowa Environmental Council, a lobbying group that represents more than 70 state organizations. "That is a big disappointment."

But the Humane Society of the United States supports his nomination, citing his responsive record on various animal rights measures. Michael Markarian, president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund, said he was not "extremely familiar" with Vilsack's record on factory farming, but Vilsack was the Humane Society's top choice, nonetheless.

"When you consider the other possible choices - like Rep. John Salazar and former Rep. Charlie Stenholm, who are closely aligned with the agribusiness industry - it becomes clear just how meaningful it is that someone like Vilsack was selected instead," Makarian said in an e-mail. "We expect him to be a reasonable and moderate voice on factory farming issues, and not someone who will automatically side with the knee-jerk positions of agribusiness."

As governor, Vilsack supported water pollution controls, renewable energy, and livestock market reforms.

After farm runoff contributed to growing problems of water pollution throughout the state, Vilsack expanded the state's annual water monitoring budget from $33,000 to $3 million. In his second term, he hosted a multi-stakeholder water summit that resulted in a new state water resources council.

"He really took on issues of impaired water and water quality, and it became...a pretty high profile focus of his administration," Heathcote said.

The agriculture secretary will have to collaborate with rural landowners in efforts to expand renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, and geothermal nationwide. As governor, Vilsack strongly advocated alternative energy and helped usher some of the world's largest wind energy companies to his state - now the country's third largest wind energy producer.

Yet it was large clean energy corporations, more than local landowners, that generally profited from the investments, according to Iowa Renewable Energy Association board member Ed Woolsey.

"His forte is not working with landowners or farmers," said Woolsey, president of Green Prairie Wind Development and a Union of Concerned Scientists consultant. "His forte is working with big business and regulatory agencies to smooth the way for them to install large developments."

The energy policy that has captured most environmentalists attention has been Vilsack's strong support for ethanol. The next agriculture secretary will inherit the Bush administration's mandates for high ethanol production - 10.5 billion gallons of corn ethanol is required next year and 15 billion gallons by 2015.

Vilsack acknowledged ethanol's limitations, however, in a Rolling Stone interview after he announced his presidency in 2006. "Frankly, corn-based ethanol is not necessarily the wave of the future," he said. "Ethanol may be, but corn is not. There's not enough corn. There needs to be focus on switchgrass, on municipal waste, on timber, on other ways to produce ethanol that is more efficient."

Sustainable agriculture advocates [PDF] had hoped someone from within their community would be picked for the job. Despite the organic community's apparent disappointment, Vilsack garnered the support of several national environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, and National Wildlife Federation.

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

OCA: Vilsack Not "Change We Can Believe In"

• By Ronnie Cummins
  Organic Consumers Association, December 17, 2008
  Straight to the Source
  
  

CLICK HERE TO STOP VILSACK'S CONFIRMATION

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 17, 2008

Organic Consumers Association: Vilsack Not "Change We Can Believe In"

WASHINGTON, DC – Today's announcement that former Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack, has been selected as the new Secretary of Agriculture sent a chill through the sustainable food and farming community who have been lobbying for a champion in the new administration.

"Vilsack's nomination sends the message that dangerous, untested, unlabeled genetically engineered crops will be the norm in the Obama Administration," said Ronnie Cummins, Executive Director of Organic Consumers Association. "Our nation's future depends on crafting a forward-thinking strategy to promote organic and sustainable food and farming, and address the related crises of climate change, diminishing energy supplies, deteriorating public health, and economic depression.”

The Department of Agriculture during the Bush Administration failed to promote a sustainable vision for food and farming and did not protect consumers from the chemical-intensive toxic practices inherent to industrial agriculture. While factory farms and junk food have been subsidized with billions of tax dollars, the US industrial farm system has released massive amounts of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and increased our dependence on foreign oil.

The Secretary of Agriculture is responsible for directing the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its $97 billion annual budget, including the National Organic Program, food stamp and nutrition programs, agriculture subsidies, and the Forest Service.

While Vilsack has worked to restrain livestock monopolies, his overall record is one of aiding and abetting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs, also known as factory farms). Vilsack’s support for unsustainable industrial ethanol production has already caused global corn and grain prices to skyrocket, literally taking food off the table for a billion people in the developing world.

Over the past month, Organic Consumers Association members have sent over 20,000 emails to President-Elect Obama’s Transition Team, calling for the appointment of a Secretary of Agriculture who would develop and implement a plan that promotes family-scale farming, a safe and nutritious food system, and a sustainable and organic vision for the future.

"Obama's choice for Secretary of Agriculture points to the continuation of agribusiness as usual, the failed policies of chemical- and energy-intensive, genetically engineered industrial agriculture," said Cummins. "Americans were promised ‘change,’ not just another shill for Monsanto and corporate agribusiness. Considering the challenges we collectively face as a nation, from climate change and rising energy costs to food insecurity, we need an administration that moves beyond ‘business as usual’ to fundamental change—before it’s too late,” concluded Cummins.

Vilsack’s business as usual positions have included the following:

• Vilsack has been a strong supporter of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn.
• The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He is also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.
• When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child for economic development was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.
• The undemocratic 2005 seed preemption bill was the Vilsack's brainchild. The law strips local government’s right to regulate genetically engineered seed.
• Vilsack is an ardent supporter of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more energy to produce as they generate and drive up world food prices, literally starving the poor.

The OCA will soon launch http://www.stopvilsack.org to mobilize hundreds of thousands of people to oppose Vilsack's Senate confirmation through an online petition.

More information is available at:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/petition.jsp?pet...

'Sack it to 'em
Tom Philpott
Grist, 16 Dec 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/16/2326/6775

*Brushing aside pressure, Obama taps a big-ag man as USDA chief

"Tom Vilsack was one of the first governors to see the promise of biotechnology. He has a very balanced view of agriculture and understands its potential." -- Ted Crosbie, vice president of global plant breeding and director of Monsanto's Iowa operations

"Governor Vilsack would be an outstanding choice for Secretary of Agriculture. He would bring great leadership and experience to the position. Governor Vilsack understands what it takes to increase agricultural productivity to meet growing global demand for food and feed." -- Paul Schickler, president of Dupont's Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of Monsanto few rivals in the genetically modified seed industry. (Both quoted from a Dec. 16 Des Moines Register piece.)

In 2007, Thomas Vilsack ended an eight-year stint as Iowa's governor. Before that, he had served as a state senator. During his time in Iowa politics, he promoted the interests of large agribusiness firms in several ways.

As a state senator, he voted for the infamous House File 519 in 1995, which stripped counties of the right to impose restrictions on CAFOs. In 2005, as governor, he signed into law House File 642, which barred local governments from regulating the planting of genetically modified seed.

In 2001, the Biotechnology Industry Organization named him "governor of the year" for his "support of the industry's economic growth and agricultural biotechnology research." Vilsack also briskly promoted biofuels as governor; he served as chair of the Governors' Ethanol Coalition.

After stepping down after his second term in 2007, Vilsack ran for president. When that bid failed, he joined the Minneapolis-based corporate law firm Dorsey & Whitney. The firm's broad range of corporate clients include food giants Cargill and Conagra. According to Dorsey & Whitney's website, Vilsack was hired to focus on "strategic counseling and advising clients in the fields of energy conservation, renewable energy, and agribusiness development." He also serves as a distinguished fellow at Iowa State University's Biosafety Institute for Genetically Modified Agricultural Products, where he sits on the advisory board with representatives of Monsanto, Dupont's Pioneer Hi-Bred, and the World Bank.

President-elect Obama has reportedly plucked Vilsack from those posts and tapped him to be USDA chief. The decision comes after a wave of hope that Obama might choose a less agribusiness-oriented candidate. I'll be writing more on this pick in the days to come.

Action Alert - Petition to Obama for MEANINGFUL GMO labeling

President Obama promised that genetically modified foods will require labels. Please sign the petition demanding comprehensive and meaningful GMO labeling; and thank him for giving us what we want, and deserve.

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

President Obama is finally going to get genetically modified (GM) foods labeled—something 270 million Americans have wanted for a long time. The Bush, Clinton, and Bush I administrations denied it to us, ignoring 9 out of 10 citizens in order to support the economic interests of the 5 Ag biotech companies that make GMOs.

Former FDA man Henry Miller admitted, "In this area, the US government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do."

Why don't the biotech companies want us to know that their products are in our food? Because we wouldn't eat them. According to a CBS/New York Times poll, most of us (53%) would avoid brands with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Close labeling loopholes

Outside the US and Canada, nearly all industrialized countries require GMOs to be labeled. But clear, comprehensive, and consumer-friendly criteria remain elusive.

Japan's laws allow food with a whopping 5% GMO contamination to go unlabeled. In Australia and New Zealand, loopholes exempt about 90% of their GM foods from labeling. Their law says that GM ingredients must be detectable in the final processed food in order to require labels. Thus, oil made from 100% GM soybeans, corn, cottonseed or canola (the four major GM crops) is unlabeled.

These loose labeling regimes have consistently angered citizens and there is momentum for tightening standards. In the EU, for example, they used to exempt undetectable GMOs but now insist on labels if any ingredient is DERIVED BY GMOs. Thus, they require traceability of ingredients to their GMO or Non-GMO origins.

The EU has another loophole that upsets citizens there (which we must avoid here in the US). Milk, meat, and eggs from animals fed GMOs don't have to be labeled. Many groups are working hard to change this EU law. In the meantime several European food companies publicly committed not to use GMO animal feed.

In the US, corporations have traditionally had the upper hand when it comes to negotiating details of regulations. We don't want that to happen with labeling.

President Obama is going to give us labeling—he promised us that. But will it be the citizens' labeling plan or Monsanto's?

Sign the petition today demanding comprehensive and meaningful GMO labeling, and thank President Obama for giving us what we want, and deserve.

But don't wait for labeling to avoid GMOs. Download our Non-GMO Shopping Guide, which gives tips and brands to help you choose healthier non-GMO food.

Healthy Eating!

Jeffrey M.Smith
Executive Director
www.responsibletechnology.org
Author, Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception

Spilling the Beans, November 2008
(This newsletter is reprinted from Jeffrey Smith's new blog on Huffington Post.)

---

Subscribe to e-newsletter Spilling the Beans

---

Obama's team includes dangerous biotech "Yes Men"

Biotech "Yes Men" on Obama's team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic "group think" that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations—where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology.

Clinton's agriculture secretary Dan Glickman saw it first hand:

"It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"

When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he "got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration."

By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist.

• The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data show that the opposite is true.
• We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average reduction in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers.
• George H. W. Bush fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants.
• Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigious International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger.

Food Safety Lies

Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA's 1992 GMO policy, which stated:

"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."

The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists that GM foods were substantially different, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public.

Their concerns stayed hidden until 1999, when 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports were made public due to a lawsuit. According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, the documents showed how their warnings and "references to the unintended negative effects" of genetic engineering "were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement," in spite of scientists' protests.

"What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?" wrote FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the policy. "It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."

Who flooded the market with dangerous GMOs

Thanks to the FDA's "promote biotech" policy, perilously few safety studies and investigations have been conducted on GMOs. Those that have, including two government studies from Austria and Italy published just last month, demonstrate that the concerns by FDA scientists should have been heeded. GMOs have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions in humans, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. GMOs are unsafe.

At the highest level, the responsibility for this disregard of science and consumer safety lies with the first Bush White House, which had ordered the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry and get GM foods on the market quickly. To accomplish this White House directive, the FDA created a position for Michael Taylor. As the FDA's new Deputy Commissioner of Policy, he oversaw the creation of GMO policy.

Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC.

Michael Taylor is on the Obama transition team.

Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk

Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1—a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see www.YourMilkonDrugs.com.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling.

As more and more consumers here learn about the health risks of the drug, they shift their purchases to brands that voluntarily label their products as not using rbGH. Consumer rejection of rbGH hit a tipping point a couple of years ago, and since then it has been kicked out of milk from Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Subway, and at least 40 of the top 100 dairies. In 2007, Monsanto desperately tried to reverse the trend by asking the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as free from rbGH. Both agencies flatly refused the company's request.

But Monsanto turned to an ally, Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. Wolff used his position to single-handedly declare rbGH-free labels illegal in his state. Such a policy would make it impossible for national dairy brands to declare their products rbGH-free, since they couldn't change packaging just for Pennsylvania. Wolff's audacious move so infuriated citizens around the nation, the outpouring caused the governor to step in and stop the prohibition before it took effect.

Dennis Wolff, according to unbossed.com, is being considered for Obama's USDA Secretary.

Although Pennsylvania did not ultimately ban rbGH-free labels, they did decide to require companies who use the labels to also include a disclaimer sentence on the package, stating that the according to the FDA there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rbGH and those not treated. In reality, this sentence contradicts the FDA's own scientists. (Is this sounding all too familiar?) Even according to Monsanto's own studies, milk from treated cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and IGF-1. Blatantly ignoring the data, a top FDA bureaucrat wrote a "white paper" urging companies that labeled products as rbGH-free to also use that disclaimer on their packaging. The bureaucrat was Michael Taylor.

Betting on biotech is "Bad-idea virus"

For several years, politicians around the US were offering money and tax-breaks to bring biotech companies into their city or state. But according to Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a 2004 report on this trend, "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable. This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials." He said it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."

One politician who caught a bad case of the bad-idea virus was Tom Vilsack, Iowa's governor from 1998-2006. He was co-creator and chair of the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year.

Tom Vilsack was considered a front runner for Obama's USDA secretary. Perhaps the outcry prompted by Vilsack's biotech connections was the reason for his name being withdrawn.

Change, Truth, Hope

I don't know Barack Obama's position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, Obama, like Bush, may be Ag biotech ally, there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist's full court spin.

- His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000.

- [Obama] said biotech crops "have provided enormous benefits" to farmers and expressed confidence "that we can continue to modify plants safely."

On the other hand, Obama may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants "stringent tests for environmental and health effects" and "stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice."

There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors.

President Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.

Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration.

(I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.)

To sign a petition asking President Obama to make his GMO labeling plan comprehensive and meaningful, click here.

---

© copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2008

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of publication Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65 risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. www.responsibletechnology.org, which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to www.seedsofdeception.com to learn more about how to avoid GM foods.