Monsanto settles with wheat growers over GM contamination

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15763-
monsanto-settles-with-wheat-growers-over-gm-contamination

 15 November 2014.

GM wheat developed by Monsanto was discovered on farmland in Eastern Oregon

EXCERPT: Soil Association Policy Director Peter Melchett said, "No one could possibly believe that GM crops would benefit English farmers when they see the extraordinary costs that GM brings in unwanted contamination. Only an ideological fixation on GM, disregarding economic realities and more modern and effective crop breeding technologies… can explain why some English farming organisations and politicians continue to promote this out of date and dangerous technology."

Monsanto settles with wheat growers over GM contamination

Farming Online, 13 November 2014
http://www.farming.co.uk/news/article/10642

OCA: Will we win in Oregon?

http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob448.html

Subscribe & Read Past Issues | OCA Homepage | Donate  TOP NEWS OF THE WEEK 6634 Votes from a Win in Oregon! Don’t believe everything you read in the papers. We have not yet lost Measure 92, Oregon’s initiative to label GMOs. According to the YES on 92 campaign, we are only 6634 votes (as of 5 p.m. Wednesday, November 12) from a win. If we get to within a margin of 49.80 percent (we're currently at 49.78!), we’ll trigger an automatic recount, paid for by the state. But here’s the thing. The only way we can win in Oregon is to contact every voter whose vote hasn’t been counted, because it was “challenged” due to a technical problem. There are enough of these “challenge” ballots—about 13,000—yet uncounted, to swing the election in our favor. We need hundreds of organizers on the ground beginning today, to reach out to voters to resolve problems with their ballots, and make sure their votes are counted. And the only way we can make that happen is to hire professional organizers, and pay travel expenses for volunteers. We are so close. There is no guarantee we will win, but a win is definitely still within reach. If we can get all of the votes counted by the deadline, 5 p.m. November 18. We know you’ve already dug deep into your pockets to help this movement. But today, we are asking again. Through our 501(c) 4 lobbying arm, we have promised to rush another $25,000 to the YES on 92 campaign to make sure we don’t lose this critical GMO labeling battle. If you can help, click here for details on how to donate online now, or by phone or mail. Thank you! ESSAY OF THE WEEK Giving Thanks, Organically In two weeks, families, friends and communities will gather around dinner tables to celebrate Thanksgiving. Leaving aside for now the nuanced political, historical and cultural complications that underlie the holiday, and taking into consideration the different meanings individuals assign to Thanksgiving, there will be one universal thread running through everyone’s celebration on Thursday, November 27: Food. For millions of Americans, unfortunately, the food on their tables will take the form of a turkey raised in filthy, crowded conditions on a diet of antibiotics and genetically engineered corn and soy, with side dishes made from potatoes and beans and other produce heavily contaminated with pesticides, accompanied by highly processed white-bread dinner rolls slathered with butter made from milk produced by cows pumped full of growth hormonesand raised in conditions no animal should be forced to endure. Thankfully, as the market for organic food grows, consumers have greater access to organic alternatives, whether they plan a traditional Thanksgiving dinner, or opt for something other than turkey, potatoes and pumpkin pie. They also have plenty of motivation: better health and nutrition; a cleaner environment; more humane treatment of animals; and a cooler planet. According to reports by the Rodale Institute, the United Nations and the Soil Association, modern, chemical-intensive industrial farming has stripped the soil’s natural ability to take carbon back out of the atmosphere, through photosynthesis, and store it where nature intended—in the soil. By returning to small-scale organic farming, say researchers at the Rodale Institute, more than 40 percent of annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could be captured in the soil. And if the world’s pasture and rangelands were managed using regenerative techniques, an additional 71 percent of GHG emissions could be sequestered. This Thanksgiving, we ask you to pledge to Cook Organic, not the Planet not just on Thanksgiving, but every day. Because as consumers, we have the power to shift the market—and save the planet. Read this week’s article on why organic is the only way to go for turkey, potatoes, green beans, pumpkin, bread, dairy and wine. Read the essay How to buy a turkey Where to buy organic ingredients TAKE ACTION: Take the Cook Organic, not the Planet Pledge! Post photos and recipes from your organic Thanksgiving ACTION ALERT Innately Wrong About 15 years ago, consumers successfullypressured McDonald’s Corp. to stop buying New Leaf potatoes, a potato varietygenetically engineered (by Monsanto) to produce its own insecticide. Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved a new GMO potato. The “Innate” brand is made by the J. R. Simplot Company—the largest supplier of potatoes to McDonald’s restaurants. (The USDA alsoapproved a new genetically engineered alfalfa last week). Simplot wants consumers to believe that its new GMO potato is not only harmless, it provides consumers with several benefits. Among those benefits are the fact that the potato is bruise-resistant (which is really a benefit to commercial buyers and growers, not consumers), and that when heated to a temperature required for frying, the potato produces less asparagine, a naturally occurring amino acid that at high temperatures reacts with some sugars to oxidize into acrylamide. Acrylamide is recognized as a potential carcinogen. In other words, the maker of the Innate GMO potato says it’s not only safe (the same claim Monsanto and Dow make about their GMO corn and soy products), it’s actually better for you than a non-GMO potato. What Simplot doesn’t tell you is that the technology used to create the Innate potato—RNA interference, or RNAi—is considered by some scientists to be even more dangerous than the DNA manipulation technology used to create Roundup Ready and Bt crops. TAKE ACTION: Please Ask McDonald’s CEO Donald Thompson to reject Simplot’s “Innately Wrong” GMO Potato! Photo Credit: arbyreed via Compfight cc

Organic Bytes

http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob447.html

PDF | Subscribe & Read Past Issues | OCA Homepage | Donate  TOP NEWS OF THE WEEK Still Counting Despite news reports that Oregon’s Measure 92 to label GMO foods was defeated on Tuesday, the official word from the YES on 92 campaign is: It’s not over. As of this morning, November 9, Measure 92 is trailing 49.73 percent to 50.27 percent. According to the official word from the campaign, a GMO labeling law in Oregon is just 8,300 votes- or just one half of one percent - shy of a win. Although the math looks difficult, the campaign believes there are enough ballots yet to be counted that a win is still within reach. Campaign staff are working diligently to make sure every vote is counted, but it's a slow process. And we may not know the outcome until November 18, the deadline for the Secretary of State to count all outstanding ballots. Whichever way it goes, Monsanto and Big Food outspent us in Oregon by more than 2 to 1, dumping a record-shattering $20.8 million into TV, radio and print ads, and direct mail, to run yet another campaign of twisted truths and outright lies. The Gene and Junk Food Giants also spent big in Colorado—more than $17 million—to defeat Colorado’s Proposition 105 this week, another citizens’ initiative to label GMOs. Conservative estimates put the total spent by the likes of Monsanto and Pepsi to defeat GMO labeling laws, so far, at about $105 million. That number doesn’t include the recordmillions spent lobbying lawmakers. Or the millions spent trying (unsuccessfully) to prevent Vermont from passing a GMO labeling law. What the pesticide and junk food companies won’t spend. Just to hide the genetically engineered, pesticide-laden “foods” they’re feeding you. GMO labeling wasn’t the only anti-GMO issue on the ballot this election. The anti-GMO movement won two key battles this week—clear signs that we are making headway. Voters in Maui County (Hawaii), passed a moratorium on the growing of GMO crops, despite an $8-million campaign waged by the biotech industry to try to stop them. Sources say a lawsuit by industry is inevitable, just as it was in Vermont. In Humboldt County, Calif., voters passed a law making it illegal "to propagate, cultivate, raise or grow any organism (or its offspring) whose DNA has been altered by genetic engineering.” The loss in Colorado is disappointing. But not debilitating. And whatever the final outcome in Oregon, this movement is very much alive. We are nothing if not patient and determined. We have the science, and you, on our side. And we are fired up.

Confused by the Oregonian's GMO Confusion, by Rick North

http://www.blueoregon.com/2014/07/confused-oregonians-gmo-confusion/

EXCERPT:

Three days after GMO labeling supporters turned in over 155,000 signatures to put their initiative on November’s ballot, and four months before Election Day, the Oregonian editorial board sounded the alarm: “GMO food-labeling mandate would sow only confusion.” The labeling they fear would be worded “Produced with Genetic Engineering.”

Let’s do a little survey on a few other federally mandated labels for everyday products:

“Contains orange juice concentrate” (Minute Maid): Confused?
“Irradiated” (Wegman’s Ground Beef): Puzzled?

“Calories - 150” (Pringles): Mystified?

“Product of Thailand” (Trader Joe’s Whole Cashews): Bewitched, bothered and bewildered?

If you answered no to all of the above, I’m guessing you’re part of a vast majority of Americans who emerge from grocery stores mentally intact. Neither have I seen any reports that consumers in 64 nations requiring GMO food labeling, including Germany, Japan, Australia, UK, even Russia, have succumbed to the Oregonian’s labeling-induced befuddlement.

Contamination, what is being done about it?

Mystery Lingers around Origin of GM Wheat in Oregon

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/07/09/mystery-lingers-around-origin-of-gm-wheat-in-oregon/

ARTICLE EXCERPT:

When the fresh wheat samples arrived at her lab this spring, Carol Mallory-Smith, a weed scientist, didn’t know what to expect. The concerned farmer who sent them had contacted her because a patch of wheat had refused to die after being treated with a powerful herbicide called Roundup. “The farmer asked me if the wheat could have evolved a natural resistance to the herbicide,” says Mallory-Smith, “but I said that that wasn’t possible because of the way wheat is exposed to Roundup.” Then the grower mentioned the possibility that Monsanto’s genetically modified wheat seeds might have made their way into the field somehow. 

NON-GMO PROJECT RESPONDS TO USDA ANNOUNCEMENT OF GMO WHEAT CONTAMINATION IN OREGON

http://www.nongmoproject.org/2013/05/29/non-gmo-project-responds-to-usda-announcement-of-gmo-wheat-contamination-in-oregon/

May 29, 2013

MEDIA CONTACT:
Courtney Pineau
courtney@nongmoproject.org
877-358-9240

Bellingham, WA, May 29, 2013—The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced today that an unapproved variety of genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant wheat was found in samples taken from a farm in Oregon. The variety detected was the same variety that Monsanto grew in test plots in 16 states from 1998 to 2005. There are no genetically engineered wheat varieties currently approved for sale in the United States or any other country.

Michael Firko, Acting Deputy Administrator for APHIS’ Biotechnology Regulatory Services states in the USDA’spress release: “We are taking this situation very seriously and have launched a formal investigation. Our first priority is to as quickly as possible determine the circumstances and extent of the situation and how it happened. We are collaborating with state, industry, and trading partners on this situation and are committed to providing timely information about our findings. USDA will put all necessary resources towards this investigation.”

The Non-GMO Project responded immediately by coordinating a surveillance testing strategy to help assess the extent of the contamination. The testing plan includes sampling wheat products from the national retail market as well as raw plant material directly from Oregon. The first tests are scheduled for Thursday, May 30, less than 24 hours after the USDA’s announcement. According to Megan Westgate, Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project, “Our priority right now is to assure the integrity of Non-GMO Project Verified products and to assist in the USDA’s investigation. The current situation is yet another reminder of the serious risks posed by open-air field trials of unapproved GMO crops.”

This is not the first time a U.S. crop has been contaminated by an unapproved GMO. Most notably, in August 2006 the USDA announced that Bayer’s genetically engineered LibertyLink rice was found in two popular varieties of U.S. long-grain rice. The discovery led to rejection by foreign markets and a corresponding dramatic decline in U.S. rice prices. The LibertyLink contamination eventually resulted in a $750 million legal settlement between Germany-based Bayer AG and its affiliates and U.S. rice farmers. According to the Delta Farm Press, European Union purchases of U.S. rice remain only a small fraction of what they were before the 2006 contamination incident.

The U.S. wheat market has similar vulnerability. According to the Oregon Wheat Commission, Oregon exports 90% of its wheat production. More than 60 countries now require labeling of GMOs, and international regulations on import and sale of unapproved GMO varieties are strict.

With the Non-GMO Project Verified label currently the fastest-growing claim in the natural products industry and more than 30 states now working toward mandatory GMO labeling, widespread GMO contamination in wheat would also have serious repercussions for the domestic market. Westgate adds, “We remain hopeful that this is an isolated incident, but the Non-GMO Project will do whatever it takes to protect the consumer’s right to know.”

###

About the Non-GMO Project
The Non-GMO Project is a nonprofit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices. Find out more at www.nongmoproject.org.

Discovery of Unapproved GE Wheat Underscores Poor Control over Field Trials

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=974

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

June 3 2013

Dear friends and colleagues, 

Re: Discovery of Unapproved GE Wheat Underscores Poor Control over Field Trials

In the wake of the announcement by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) on 29 May 2013 that unapproved genetically engineered (GE) glyphosate-resistant wheat plants (developed by Monsanto) were found in a farm in Oregon, there has been a growing demand for answers on how this could have happened and strong critique on the (in)adequacy of control over field trials of GE crops.  

There have been 22 documented cases of unauthorized releases of GE varieties e.g. of corn and rice over the past two decades, according to a study by the University of California, Riverside, USA. What makes this most recent incident especially alarming is that unlike GE corn and soy, GE wheat hasn’t been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. 

In this particular case, Monsanto was authorized to field test its GE wheat in 16 states from 1998 to 2005. The company claims that it followed rigorous procedures in closing the project such as forcing researchers to burn or ship back leftover seeds. Obviously, this wasn’t enough. 

Field trials are environmental releases of engineered transgenes and should be regulated stringently as such. But are they? The USDA recorded 712 violations of its regulations from 2003-2007, including 98 that could lead to a possible release of unauthorized crops, and 21 major non-compliances from 1995-2011, five of which involved Monsanto.  

A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2008 concluded that the USDA lacked the resources to conduct routine testing on areas adjacent to the GE crops to monitor any escape of the transgenes and instead relied on biotechnology companies to voluntarily provide test results.

The U.S. has some 1,000 field trials for new GE crops every year, most in multiple sites. The protocols for containing those genes are lax, argue critics. “I would not be at all surprised if there are a number of experimental genes that have contaminated and are happily being passed along at low levels in the food supplies of various crops already, but nobody’s testing,” says Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. “It’s really a ‘don’t look, don’t tell’ situation. We just really don’t know”. 


With best wishes,

Third World Network

131 Jalan Macalister

10400 Penang

Malaysia

Email: twnet@po.jaring.my

Website: www.biosafety-info.net and www.twn.my

To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net 

Illegal Monsanto GMO Wheat Found in Oregon

https://www.freespeech.org/text/illegal-monsanto-gmo-wheat-found-oregon

The Agriculture Department said the wheat was of the type developed by Monsanto to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, also known as glyphosate. Such wheat was field-tested in 16 states, including Oregon, from 1998 through 2005, but Monsanto dropped the project before the wheat was ever approved for commercial planting.

Labeling update

http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob328.htm

Monsanto's Minions in California

Find out who's spreading Monsanto's lies and trying to kill the CA Label GMOs/Right to Know ballot initiative. Hint... It isn't a grassroots coalition of farmers and small businesses. Remember, 9 out of 10 voters support labels on genetically engineered food! Lies being spread against mandatory labeling of GMOs are the handiwork of big business propagandists, merchants of death hired to the dirty work for the tobacco companies, insurance industry and the chemical industry.

Learn more

Connecticut Correction and Update

Last week, OCA erroneously reported that the labeling bill (HB 5117) in the Connecticut legislature was stalled and appeared to be going nowhere. This was untrue! Despite massive public support for labeling of GMOs, once again, Monsanto threatened a lawsuit and legislators rolled right over. Over the weekend, the bill was eviscerated and the labeling provision removed before it was voted on by the House. Unfortunately, we inadvertently predicted this kind of outrageous outcome. This subversion of democracy is why we need to stand up to Monsanto and support the California Ballot Initiative.

Learn more

Right to Know Movement Heads to Oregon

There is a chance California won't be alone this November in the Right to Know Genetically Engineered Foods campaign. While we've just seen state legislatures in Vermont and Connecticut back down from passing similar GMO labeling legislation, even in the face of overwhelming public support, organizers in Oregon have a chance to take a cue from California and get an initiative on this year's ballot.

Oregon's Right to Know initiative, which mandates labeling for genetically engineered foods, has been jumping through the administrative hoops of the initiative process since March and is expected to emerge from that process ready for signature gathering at the beginning of June. That will give volunteers four weeks to gather at least 100,000 signatures before the initiative deadline. For the Oregon Right to Know initiative to succeed, they need your help. If you live in Oregon, visit the campaign's web site and volunteer to help gather signatures. Whether you collect signatures from your friends, family, and co-workers, collect at your church, or table at the farmers market, everyone's help is needed.

For more info visit the website or contact Scott Bates, the initiative's chief petitioner at scott@oregonrighttoknow.org and (971) 266-0920.

Also in Oregon, a group of Organic and non-GMO farmers and gardeners is petitioning to pass a County ordinance that will prohibit the growing of genetically engineered crops in Jackson County.

Read more