Bayer raises offer to buy Monsanto

http://www.dw.com/en/bayer-raises-offer-to-buy-monsanto/a-19528519

The German pharmaceuticals giant Bayer has offered to sweeten its bid for its American rival Monsanto. A successful takeover would create a juggernaut in the genetically modified seeds and pesticides business.

Environmental Leaders say 'No!' to Gene Drives

OAHU, HAWAI'I — As thousands of government representatives and conservationists convene in Oahu this week for the 2016 World Conservation Congress, international conservation and environmental leaders are raising awareness about the potentially dangerous use of gene drives — a controversial new synthetic biology technology intended to deliberately cause targeted species to become extinct.

Members of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), including NGOs, government representatives, and scientific and academic institutions, overwhelmingly voted to adopt a de facto moratorium on supporting or endorsing research into gene drives for conservation or other purposes until the IUCN has fully assessed their impacts. News of the August 26 digital vote comes as an important open letter to the group is being delivered.

Scientists and environmental experts and organizations from around the globe have advocated for a halt to proposals for the use of gene drive technologies in conservation. Announced today, a long list of environmental leaders, including Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE, genetics professor and broadcaster Dr. David Suzuki, Dr. Fritjof Capra, entomologist Dr. Angelika Hilbeck, Indian environmental activist Dr. Vandana Shiva and organic pioneer and biologist Nell Newman, have lent their support to the open letter: “A Call for Conservation with a Conscience: No Place for Gene Drives in Conservation.” The letter states, in part: “Gene drives, which have not been tested for unintended consequences, nor fully evaluated for ethical and social impacts, should not be promoted as conservation tools.”

To read the full press release:

http://www.etcgroup.org/content/30-environmental-leaders-say-no-gene-drives-conservation

How the GE Food Venture Has Been Chronically Dependent on Deception

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/how-the-ge-food-venture-has-been-chronically-dependent-on-deception/

By Steven Druker

Although it purports to be based on solid science and the open flow of information on which science depends, the massive venture to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply has substantially relied on the propagation of falsehoods. Its advancement and very survival have been crucially and chronically dependent on the misrepresentation of reality – to the extent that more than thirty years after the creation of the first genetically engineered plant, the vast majority of people the world-over (including most government officials, journalists, and even scientists) continue to be misled about the important facts.

Moreover, contrary to what people would expect, the biotechnology industry has not been the main source of the deceptions. Instead, the chief misrepresentations have been issued by respected government agencies and eminent scientists and scientific institutions.

Millions Spent, No One Served: Who Is to Blame for the Failure of GMO Golden Rice?

by Angelika Hilbeck and Hans Herren

The recent Nobel laureates’ letter accusing Greenpeace of a “crime against humanity” for opposing genetically modified (GMO) golden rice reveals a deep division not only between civil societies and some science circles but also within the science community – a division in the visions for our common future and which path to take for our joint development. A division we see growing and escalating. A strong indication of this division is that among the Nobel laureate signatories, there seems to be hardly anybody with a solid scientific track record in agriculture, food production, development, or the socio-ecological and political causes of poverty and hunger. Others with notable competence – at least in the economic and social domains of development, poverty, and hunger – are not among the signatories. Signs of escalation also include the emotional, accusing language in the letter and the ample use of scientifically unsubstantiated claims. What is missing in the letter and among the supporters and developers of GMOs is the recognition and scientific analysis of some tough facts.

3 Major Problems With Monsanto’s New GMO Soybeans

View high resolution 

http://www.ecowatch.com/major-problems-monsantos-new-gmo-soybeans-1955821571.html

Lorraine Chow

Earlier this year, Monsanto commercially launched its Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans—a product undoubtedly attractive to soy farmers. The new seeds not only promised higher yields, but it would be a new tool in a soy farmer’s arsenal to battle superweeds that have evolved to resist the herbicide glyphosate, aka Roundup. Xtend soybeans are genetically altered to withstand both glyphosate and an existing herbicide called dicamba. But in reality, the promise of Monsanto’s splashy new bean appears to be short-sighted, leaving farmers with the much worse end of the bargain. 

Unapproved GM Wheat Discovered Again in the U.S.

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

Dear Friends and Colleagues

GM wheat that has not been approved for sale or commercial production in the U.S has been found growing in a field in Washington state. No GM wheat has ever been commercialised, but GM wheat was authorised for field trials in the U.S. between 2000-2003. The GM wheat had previously been discovered growing in Oregon in 2013, and in Montana in 2014.

With best wishes,

Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net
________________________________________________________________________


http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/
content/news/articles/ap/2016/07/29/GMO_wheat_found_in_Washington_state_could_affect_US_trade.html

GMO wheat found in Washington state could affect US trade
By PHUONG LE,
July 29, 2016

GMOs, Greenpeace and Nobel Laureates

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/13/gmos-greenpeace-and-nobel-laureates/

By Carmelo Ruiz

Supporters of genetic modification technology, known as GMO, apparently scored a big one on June 30 with the publication of an open letter signed by over 100 Nobel prize laureates blasting Greenpeace for its opposition to GMO crops, in particular so-called ‘golden rice’, supposedly high in vitamin A. But activists and critical experts see the much publicized open letter as no more than a clumsy and awkward public relations move.

Golden rice and scientific consensus

http://foodfirst.org/golden-rice-and-scientific-consensus/

Carmelo Ruiz | 07.15.2016

“The GMO debate is over! The alarmist activists have lost and science has won!”

Well – that’s the impression one gets when reading journalist Joel Achenbach’s Washington Post article detailing the open letter that 107 Nobel laureates signed on to, which attacks the environmental group Greenpeace for its opposition to GMO crops (1).

The letter specifically defends GMO vitamin A-enhanced ‘golden rice’, which according to biotech supporters, is needed to alleviate the suffering of millions of Asians who suffer from vitamin A deficiency (2). Ultimately, the text suggests that Greenpeace is the one obstacle preventing the wonder rice from addressing the needs of the world’s poor and hungry.

******

Achenbach writes that the consensus among scientists is that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) do not present new or novel risks, and refers to a US National Academy of Sciences report on the subject published in May (3). The Post article acknowledges that Greenpeace is not alone in its critical position on GMOs, but it does not mention who else is in the opposition, and defines the debate as one between “mainstream scientists and activists.”

However, not all scientists and experts are impressed with the letter. Far from it.

The GMO Debate: One Student’s Experience of Pro-GMO Propaganda at Cornell University

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-gmo-debate-one-

students-experience-of-pro-gmo-propaganda-at-cornell-university/

My name is Robert, and I am a Cornell University undergraduate student. However, I’m not sure if I want to be one any more. Allow me to explain.

Cornell, as an institution, appears to be complicit in a shocking amount of ecologically destructive, academically unethical, and scientifically deceitful behavior. Perhaps the most potent example is Cornell’s deep ties to industrial GMO agriculture, and the affiliated corporations such as Monsanto. I’d like to share how I became aware of this troubling state of affairs.

Throughout my secondary education, I’ve always had a passion for science. In particular, physics and mathematics captured my fascination. My sophomore AP physics teacher, Mr. Jones, became my main source of motivation to succeed. He convinced us students that our generation was crucial to repairing humanity’s relationship to science, and how we would play key roles in solving immense global issues, such as climate change. Thank you Mr. Jones! Without your vision, I would have never had the chance to attend such an amazing university.

I came to Cornell as a freshman, deeply unaware of our current GMO agriculture paradigm, and my university’s connection to it. After two years of school, however, I was reluctant to continue traditional study. I never felt quite at ease, jumping through hoops, taking classes and tests that didn’t inspire me, in exchange for a piece of paper (degree) that somehow magically granted me a superior life. I know many undergraduates fit right in with the university education model, and that’s fantastic. I certainly didn’t, and my mental and physical health began to suffer as a result. I was left with no choice but to take a leave of absence, and pursue another path.

Do CRISPR enthusiasts have their head in the sand about the safety of gene editing?

https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/18/crispr-off-target-effects/

by Sharon Begley

While the 150 experts from industry, academia, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration were upbeat about the possibility of using genome-editing to treat and even cure sickle cell disease, leukemia, HIV/AIDS, and other blood disorders, there was a skunk at the picnic: an emerging concern that some enthusiastic CRISPR-ers are ignoring growing evidence that CRISPR might inadvertently alter regions of the genome other than the intended ones.

“In the early days of this field, algorithms were generated to predict off-target effects and [made] available on the web,” Joung said. Further research has shown, however, that such algorithms, including one from MIT and one called E-CRISP, “miss a fair number” of off-target effects. “These tools are used in a lot of papers, but they really aren’t very good at predicting where there will be off-target effects,” he said. “We think we can get off-target effects to less than 1 percent, but we need to do better,” especially if genome-editing is to be safely used to treat patients.

Puerto Rico Gives Away Over $519 Million to Multinational Seed Corporations Including Monsanto

http://periodismoinvestigativo.com/2016/07/puerto-rico-gives-away-
over-519-million-to-multinational-seed-corporations-including-monsanto/

Throughout the decade of fiscal crisis, the Island has been a corporate welfare paradise for companies that even get free water from the country’s southern compromised water sources.

por Eliván Martínez Mercado

Don’t Eat the Yellow Rice: The Danger of Deploying Vitamin A Golden Rice

by Ted Greiner, PhD

What better way to discredit your critics than to rope in 107 naive Nobel Prize winners (all without relevant expertise) to criticize your opposition?

But such tactics are not new. Long ago, the GMO industry spent well over $50 million to promote “Golden Rice” as the solution to vitamin A deficiency in low income countries. They did so well before the technology was completely worked out, let alone tested. Let alone consumer acceptability tested. Let alone subjecting it to standard phase 2 and 3 trials to see if it could ever solve problems in the real world.

So why has this apparently straightforward scientific project not reached completion after so many decades?

Because the purpose of Golden Rice was never to solve vitamin A problems. It never could and never will. It’s purpose from the beginning was to be a tool for use in shaming GMO critics and now to convince Nobel Laureates to sign on to something they didn’t understand.

Greenpeace defends its postion

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/2016/Nobel-laureates-sign-letter-on-Greenpeace-Golden-rice-position---reactive-statement/

Nobel laureates sign letter on Greenpeace ‘Golden’ rice position - statement

Press release - 30 June, 2016

Manila, 30 June 2016 - A number of Nobel laureates have recently signed a letter calling on Greenpeace to review its position on genetically engineered ‘Golden’ rice. In response, Wilhelmina Pelegrina, Campaigner at Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said:

“Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered ‘Golden’ rice are false. ‘Golden’ rice has failed as a solution and isn’t currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research. As admitted by the International Rice Research Institute, it has not been proven to actually address Vitamin A Deficiency. So to be clear, we are talking about something that doesn’t even exist.

“Corporations are overhyping ‘Golden’ rice to pave the way for global approval of other more profitable genetically engineered crops. This costly experiment has failed to produce results for the last 20 years and diverted attention from methods that already work. Rather than invest in this overpriced public relations exercise, we need to address malnutrition through a more diverse diet, equitable access to food and eco-agriculture.”

On alternative solutions:

“The only guaranteed solution to fix malnutrition is a diverse healthy diet. Providing people with real food based on ecological agriculture not only addresses malnutrition, but is also a scaleable solution to adapt to climate change.

"We’ve documented communities across the Philippines that continue to express concerns about using GE 'Golden' rice as a solution. It is irresponsible to impose GE ‘Golden’ rice as a quick remedy to people on the frontlines and who do not welcome it, particularly when there are safe and effective options already available.

“Greenpeace Philippines is already working with NGO partners and farmers in the Philippines to boost climate resiliency. There’s a real chance here for governments and the philanthropic community to support these endeavours by investing in climate-resilient ecological agriculture and empowering farmers to access a balanced and nutritious diet, rather than pouring money down the drain for ‘Golden’ rice.”

Nobel Laureate Attack on Greenpeace Traced Back to Biotech PR Operators

by Jonathan Latham, PhD

Greenpeace was denied entrance yesterday (June 30) to a National Press Club Event in Washington, DC of 107 Nobel Laureates. The event was ostensibly organised by a scientific group calling itself Support Precision Agriculture to publicise a letter signed by 107 Nobel Laureates demanding that Greenpeace cease its opposition to “golden rice” and GMO technology in general. Greenpeace was attempting to attend the event. However, senior research specialist on GMOs, Charlie Cray, accompanied by Tim Schwab, senior researcher from Food and Water Watch were both physically prevented from entering the Press Club.

Pro-GMO campaign exploits Nobel laureates to attack Greenpeace and fool the people

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/17077-pro-gmo-
campaign-exploits-nobel-laureates-to-attack-greenpeace-and-fool-the-people

Greenpeace is being criticized for blocking GMO golden rice – even though the crop is years away from being ready, reports Claire Robinson

Monsanto in Mexico | Who are the Mayan beekeepers? What do they claim? What do they want?

http://ejfood.blogspot.com/2016/07/monsanto-in-mexico-who-are-mayan.html

Indigenous beekeepers face ruin despite supposed rule of law
MEXICAN AUTHORITIES COLLUDE WITH TRANSNATIONALS TO UNDERMINE COURT RULINGS

Devon G. Peña | Seattle, WA | July 4, 2016

Who are the Mayan beekeepers leading the struggle against Monsanto’s GMO soybean plantings in the Mexican state of Campeche? This question is the most important one we can ask and answer in order to arrive at a deeper appreciation of the depth and historical nature of the challenges facing the indigenous consultation process that was ordered by the Supreme Court last year to resolve the dispute over the planting of transgenic soybeans in a core culture area of Mexican indigenous autonomy.

The GMO labeling fight and Brexit

Grace Gershuny
Greetings from Edinburgh, Scotland!

It so happens that my trip to Great Britain coincided with a historic referendum that has thrown the future of this nation (or should I say, these nations) into a haze of uncertainty. Welcome to the age of Brexit, and a political tableau that appears to be a mirror image of this unpredictable electoral season back home in the good old USA. 

The organic community has also recently become caught up in another political wrangle. The blogosphere and twitterverse have been humming with tension along with celebration: July 1 marks another historic event, as my home state of Vermont's first in the nation GMO labeling law goes into effect. Meanwhile, another eleventh hour piece of legislation is being pushed forward in the US Senate that would preempt Vermont's law. This bi-partisan bill includes some provisions negotiated by the Organic Trade Association, tradeoffs that OTA believes make it worth supporting despite it being a "less than perfect" compromise that "we can live with." Many others, including those dedicated anti-GMO activists celebrating in Vermont, are not so accepting.

GM(Woes) | Ghostbusters, GMOs, and the Feigned Expertise of Nobel Laureates

http://ejfood.blogspot.com/2016/07/gmwoes-ghostbusters-gmos-and-feigned_2.html

 Last week a controversy erupted just as the Roberts-Stabinow Digital Divide GMO labeling law was being discussed in the Senate. It involves a letter signed by 100+ Nobel laureates attacking Greenpeace for being “anti-scientific” in its stance against the proliferation and continued use of genetically engineered organisms.

The letter is a defense of “Golden Rice”, a GMO said to address vitamin deficiencies associated with blindness in the Global South and perhaps one of the worst of the frequent scientific frauds perpetrated by biotechnology interests. The Nobel Prize recipients fell for a zombie rice story that refuses to die and persists as a central legitimizing narrative in the pseudo-humanitarian rhetoric that regularly spews from the pro-GMO propaganda machine. I have written about this in the past to show how Monsanto and the other Gene Giants are spending hundreds of millions on a deceptive campaign to misinform the public about the fake scientific consensus they spin based on inadequately designed industry-led studies of risk, toxicology, and food safety (see the post of May 2, 2014).

It should be further noted that scientists and activists in the food and seed sovereignty movements, including Vandana Shiva, have shown two things about this so-called miracle rice crop: (1) Advances in eliminating blindness among children in the Global South, where they have been possible, worked by addressing access to healthy and culturally appropriate foods and diets; getting rid of hunger and poverty greatly reduces the prevalence of nutritionally triggered blindness, and many other maladies for that matter. (2) The scientific claims about Golden Rice are fabricated exaggerations. Researchers with Vandana Shiva’s Seed Freedom project explain the gist of the problem:

Since the daily average requirement of vitamin A is 750 micrograms of vitamin A and 1 serving contains 30g of rice according to dry weight basis, ‘Vitamin A rice’ would only provide 9.9 micrograms which is 1.32% of the required allowance.  Even taking the 100g figure of daily consumption of rice used in the technology transfer paper would only provide 4.4% of the RDA. In order to meet the full needs of 750 micrograms of vitamin A from rice, an adult would have to consume 2 kg (272g) of rice per day.  This implies that one family member would consume the entire family ration of 10kg. (See the research on this question at Seed Freedom, here).

Moreover, it has been noted by numerous scientific experts and other observers that none of the signers of the letter have any substantive research experience in the fields of environmental risk science, toxicology, or food safety. The group of Nobel Laureates includes: 1 peace prize, 8 economists, 24 physicists, 33 chemists, 41 doctors. One critic of the letter, Claire Robinson of GM Watch, adds the observation, quoting Phillip Stark, Associate Dean, Division of Mathematical snd Physical Sciences and Professor of Statistics at University of California-Berkeley, that science is “about evidence not authority. What do they know of agriculture? Have they done relevant research? Science is supposed to be ‘show me’ not ‘trust me’…Nobel Prize or not.”

This leads me to make another observation about the unethical nature of this letter which is an example of the deception of scientific authority masquerading as expertise. The only expert in agriculture on the list of signers is the ghostly Norman Borlaug, who is of course the “Father of the Green Revolution”. And herein lies the basic problem: Borlaug was no friend of Indigenous farmers, seed savers, and plant breeders. He was guilty of imposing high-input hybrid seeds developed by technicians in lab-white who never consulted or developed relations of solidarity with farmers. This was arrogant top-down agricultural managerialism and did a lot to damage the prospects for food sovereignty. As one recent study of the failure of Golden Rice notes:

The Green Revolution spread generic, disembedded high-input seeds to replace locally adapted landraces as well as peasant attitudes and practices associated with them. The disembeddedness of Golden Rice that boosts its value as a public relations vehicle has also been the main impediment in it reaching farmers’ fields, as it has proved difficult to breed into varieties that grow well specifically in the Philippines.[1]

The disembeddedness of GMO crops is the heart of this problem and the Nobel laureates have failed to understand how culture intersects with agriculture in ways most physicists and neoliberal economists cannot fully comprehend unless they open their minds to other ways of knowing and being in the world. Anyone with the intelligence to become a Nobel laureate surely has a moral obligation to understand this cultural context before participating in an act of epistemic violence designed to justify continued corporate domination of our food systems and dismiss our scientific counter-claims and evidence as ideological puffery.

We may also need to recruit the Ghostbusters since at least two of the signers are dead. Alfred G Gilman died on Dec 23 2015 and Norman Borlaug died on Sept 12, 2009.

I am reposting the insightful critique of the letter prepared by Claire Robinson of GM Watch. The original post can be found here at: GM Watch.

- Devon Peña

Source note:

[1] Glenn Davis Stone and Dominic Glover 2016. Disembedding grain: Golden Rice, the Green Revolution, and heirloom seeds in the Philippines. Agriculture and Human Values. April 16, 2016. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-016-9696-1. doi:10.1007/s10460-016-9696-1.

Financial Conflicts at National Academy Advisory Panel on the Future of GMO Regulation

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/conflicts-at-national-
academy-advisory-panel-on-gmo-regulation/

by Jonathan Latham, PhD

The National Academy of Sciences needs to urgently address its one-sided work on GMOs say public-interest groups, farmer organisations, and academics. In a letter sent to the Academy’s president today, dozens of stakeholders drew attention to what they called a “troubling trend” at the prestigious scientific institution and its work on agricultural biotechnology.

No, "science" has not confirmed that GMOs are safe to eat

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16963-no-science-
has-not-confirmed-that-gmos-are-safe-to-eat

First, and most importantly, the NAS doesn't hold an "umbrella" view on the safety of GMOs. Along with many other international bodies, it recognises that such a view is untenable, given that the GM process can give rise to different and unpredictable effects in each case. The committee points out that it has received "impassioned requests" to give the public a simple, general, authoritative answer about GM crops, but that given the complexity of GMO issues, it did not see that as appropriate. Following that, in a 400-page document, the committee develops its view on the issue. That view is undoubtedly more favourable to the use of GMOs in agriculture than that of most environmental groups – but it is also much more conservative than that of many GMO promoters (including El País). Far from stating that "science has confirmed that GMOs are safe", the report could be more accurately summarised as stating, "There’s a lot that we don’t know, which isn’t surprising, because no one is looking."