Organic Beef, Dairy and Many Vegetables Threatened

By Ari LeVaux

Alternet.org

Monsanto has been trying for years to gain approval for its genetically modified Roundup-Ready alfalfa seed. On January 27th, 2011, it finally got the green light in the form of "deregulation." This means that farmers are free to plant GE Alfalfa, and the USDA won't even be keeping track of who plants it where. There will be no tracking, no notification system, and no responsibility on the part of Monsanto for any business that's lost as a result of the genetic contamination that is certain to occur. If the ruling stands, we can kiss organic dairy and beef goodbye, and many organic vegetable growers will have to switch the cover crops they use on their fields.

The Center for Food Safety is planning on dragging the issue back to court, where the organization has a good track record in recent years against Monsanto, even in the notoriously business-friendly US Supreme Court, which in June upheld a ban on the planting of Roundup-Ready alfalfa until the USDA drafts an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

That EIS was dutifully drafted and released in December, 2010. The document airs the concerns expressed by the vast majority of the 200,000-plus comments on GE alfalfa, yet somehow concludes: "...consumer preferences for organic over GE foods are influenced in part by ethical and environmental factors that are likely unrelated to minor unintended presence of GE content in feed crops."

That's quite a use of the word "likely": When the organic rules were drafted in 1997, big ag tried very, very hard to include GE products in organic-labeled foods. In response to this attempt, USDA received over 275,000 comments against GE in organics. It was the largest number of comments USDA had ever received on a single issue. How the USDA managed to conclude that consumers of organic food are likely unconcerned by contamination of organic products is a mystery - at least, until we recall that Tom Vilsack, Obama's agriculture boss, used to fly around in a Monsanto corporate jet while governor of Iowa. During that same period he was also named "Governor of the Year" by the Biotechnology Industry Council.

Another word in the above statement that bears scrutiny is the "minor" in "minor unintended presence of GE content in feed crops." While it may be true that the public may in fact be OK with a little "minor" genetic contamination, there's nothing minor about the threat posed by Roundup-Ready alfalfa.

Alfalfa is the main forage crop for dairy cows and one of the principle foods for beef cows, especially grass-fed cattle. Alfalfa is a perennial, easily lasting five years once planted. And it's bee-pollinated, which means each year, every non-GE alfalfa plant within five miles of every GE alfalfa plant will likely be contaminated by GE genes.

According to the Organic Consumers Association, "...the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa [is] guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil food web by the toxic herbicide, Roundup; and guaranteed to produce Roundup-resistant superweeds that will require even more deadly herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of alfalfa across the U.S."

When Tom Vilsack was named as Agriculture Secretary by President Obama in late 2008, sustainable food activists felt they had been duped. The appointment followed a flood of opposition that resulted in Vilsack's name being removed from Obama's short list of USDA chiefs. This rope-a-dope took the wind out of opposition sails, and foodies let down their guard and began optimistically ruminating on who should run the agency. Then, out of the blue, Vilsack was appointed. Two years into Obama's administration, he appears to embody Obama's centrist approach, praising organic foods out of one side of his mouth while supporting GE foods out of the other, as if the two are separate but equal.

But the deregulation of GE alfalfa throws the possibility of coexistence out the window. And if history is any guide, the victims of genetic contamination will not only have no legal recourse, but they will face being sued by Monsanto for illegal use of its patented genes.

The battle lines drawn on the issue of GE alfalfa highlight a fracture in the organic movement that could be described as between the "haves" (well funded, politically connected groups and businesses that have forfeited their voices for the sake of politics and money) and the "have-nots" (small, grassroots groups and individuals, unbeholden, who speak their minds). The haves include Whole Foods and other major retailers of organic food, as well as producers like Organic Valley and Stonyfield Farms.

While the decision makers in these companies may oppose GE food in their hearts, they've made the calculated business decision to cave on the issue in hopes of assurance that attempts at keeping GE alfalfa separate from non-GE alfalfa will be made. According to a January 24th statement from Whole Foods, "The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must."
Given that public sentiment is overwhelmingly against genetically engineered food, it's not surprising that the Monsantos and Forage Genetics of the world are against labeling. What's telling is that retailers like Whole Foods also oppose labeling foods that have GE ingredients. Instead, the company has put its weight behind the effort to label foods that do not contain GE ingredients. This may sound like the same thing, but as Norman Braksick, president of Monsanto subsidiary Asgrow Seed Co., once said, "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."

The Organic Consumer Association asserts that two-thirds of Whole Food's product line is not organic, which means they could be contaminated by GE genes. It's no surprise Whole Foods doesn't want to put what amounts to a "skull and crossbones" on two-thirds of its products. Kristina Hubbard, Director of Advocacy for the Organic Seed Alliance, says that while hers and other organic watchdog groups oppose GE alfalfa, it's important to remember that conventional farmers are also put at risk by the ruling. Via email she told me:
"We believe USDA's decision to deregulate alfalfa puts the integrity of organic and non-genetically engineered seed, and thus the integrity of organic food, at risk. While the media paints this as organic versus biotechnology, it's important to note that conventional producers, including exporters, also feel threatened by GE alfalfa. In fact, the lead plaintiff in the alfalfa lawsuit is a conventional seed producer. I represent organic interests at OSA, but I've noticed that more conventional stakeholders are standing up in opposition to GE alfalfa than any other GE crop type (i.e., corn, soy, etc.) that has been deregulated."

This is an important point, but while individual conventional farmers are among the victims of genetic contamination, the organic industry as a whole is threatened by USDA's deregulation of GE alfalfa.

By deregulating its first perennial crop, which happens to be a bee-pollinated plant that is the foundation for the organic dairy and beef industries, USDA is breaking ground that cannot be easily repaired. Widespread genetic contamination has for years been threatening to make the entire GE discussion mute, because once everything is contaminated there will be nothing pure left to protect. In the same way, GE alfalfa threatens to make the whole idea of organic mute. Or at the very least, finally bring about the biotech industry's long-desired change of the organic standards to include GE ingredients. Once non-GE crops become impossible to find, what choice will we have?
 
Source:
http://www.alternet.org/food/149716
___________________

WikiLeaks Cables Reveal U.S. Sought to Retaliate Against Europe over Monsanto GM Crops


Democracy Now
Dec. 23, 2010


U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal the Bush administration drew up ways to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use genetically modified seeds. In 2007, then-U.S. ambassador to France Craig Stapleton was concerned about France’s decision to ban cultivation of genetically modified corn produced by biotech giant Monsanto. He also warned that a new French environmental review standard could spread anti-biotech policy across Europe. We speak with Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology.

[transcript]

JUAN GONZALEZ: U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal the Bush administration drew up ways to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use genetically modified seeds. In 2007, then-US ambassador to France Craig Stapleton was concerned about France’s decision to ban cultivation of genetically modified corn produced by biotech giant Monsanto. He also warned that a new French environmental review standard could spread anti-biotech policy across Europe.

In the leaked cable, Stapleton writes, quote, "Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [European] Commission...Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voice."


AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Stapleton goes on to write, quote, "Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory," he wrote.

Well, for more, we’re going to Iowa City to speak with Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, author of two books, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating and the book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.

Jeffrey Smith, joining us by Democracy Now! video stream, thanks so much for being with us. Talk about the significance of these documents leaked by WikiLeaks.

JEFFREY SMITH: Well, we’ve been saying for years that the United States government has joined at—is joined at the hip with Monsanto and pushing GMOs as part of Monsanto’s agenda on the rest of the world. This lays bare the mechanics of that effort. We have Craig Stapleton, the former ambassador to France, specifically asking the U.S. government to retaliate and cause some harm throughout the European Union. And then, two years later, in 2009, we have a cable from the ambassador to Spain from the United States asking for intervention there, asking the government to help formulate a biotech strategy and support the government—members of the government in Spain that want to promote GMOs, as well. And here, they specifically indicate that they sat with the director of Monsanto for the region and got briefed by him about the politics of the region and created strategies with him to promote the GMO agenda.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, they apparently were especially interested in one Monsanto product, MON 810. Could you talk about that?


JEFFREY SMITH: Yes. This is the first seed that was approved for widespread planting. You see, the biotech industry was concerned initially about the European Union accepting genetically modified foods. Although that had been approved for years by the commission, the food industry had rejected it because consumers were concerned. And so, there hasn’t been a lot of food going to the European Union that’s genetically modified.

However, they had planned to allow the growing of genetically modified seeds. Now that MON 810 has been allowed, individual countries have stepped forward to ban in. And so, in 2007, they were concerned about that, and so they were trying to create a strategy to force these countries to accept the first of the genetically modified seeds. Since then, there’s been more evidence showing that this genetically modified corn damages mice and rats, etc., can cause reductions of fertility, smaller litter sizes, smaller offspring, immune responses, etc. And these have gone largely ignored by both the European Food Safety Authority and the United States FDA.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about these health effects. Jeffrey Smith, you wrote a fascinating "Anniversary of a Whistleblowing Hero" piece about a British scientist and about the repercussions he suffered. He was one of the biggest GMO advocates. And explain what happened and what he actually learned.

JEFFREY SMITH: Well, Dr. Arpad Pusztai was actually working on a $3 million grant from the U.K. government to figure out how to test for the safety of GMOs. And what he discovered quite accidentally is that genetically modified organisms are inherently unsafe. Within 10 days, his supposedly harmless GMO potatoes caused massive damage to rats—smaller brains, livers and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, damaged immune system, etc. And what he discovered was it was the process, the generic process of genetic engineering, that was likely the cause of the problem. He went public with his concerns and was a hero.

AMY GOODMAN: But I think you have to—Jeffrey Smith, if you could explain this. This is very significant, because he was an expert on the protein that was—it’s this kind of insecticide. And everyone thought, oh, that might be the thing that would hurt people. But he said, actually, it wasn’t the thing that was injected into the—or however it works when you genetically modify a potato, when you put that chemical inside, the protein inside the potato—it wasn’t that.

JEFFREY SMITH: Exactly. You see, he was testing with rats that were eating the genetically modified potato, engineered to produce an insecticidal protein. But he also tested other groups of rats that were eating natural potatoes that were spiked with that same protein, and then a third group that was just eating natural potatoes without the insecticide. Only the group that ate the genetically engineered potato got these problems, not the group that was eating the potatoes along with the insecticide. So it clearly wasn’t the insecticide; it was somehow the process of genetic engineering.

Now, that process creates massive collateral damage inside the DNA of the plant. Hundreds and thousands of mutations can be formed. There could be hundreds or thousands of genes that are natural genes in the plant that change their levels of expression. For example, with MON 810 corn, they found that there was a gene that is normally silent that is switched on and now creates an allergen in corn. They found 43 different genes that were significantly up-regulated or down-regulated, meaning that there’s massive changes in these crops and they’re not being evaluated by the U.S.—by the FDA or any other regulatory authority around the world before being put onto the market.


JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, was there any indication from the cables or from your research that the pressure that Ambassador Stapleton and other U.S. officials were putting on the E.U. had the desired effect? Because obviously Ambassador Stapleton, or former Ambassador Stapleton, was not just any former ambassador, he was the former co-owner of the Texas Rangers with former President George W. Bush.

JEFFREY SMITH: Well, we’ve seen a consistent effort by the U.S. to bully Europe. But, you see, European—the European mind on this is kind of divided. Some countries are clearly in the camp of precautionary principle and protecting interests for health. Others are basically moving in lockstep with the U.S. government and Monsanto. So it’s a fiercely pitched battle on every front in Europe.

A lot of the focus of the State Department has been on developing countries. They try and push GMOs into Africa. They deployed the Secretary of State’s chief advisory—scientific adviser, Nina Fedoroff, to Australia and to India. They tried to engage the Indian government with a contract or a treaty that would allow their scientists to be trained in the U.S. So they’ve been working around the world to try and influence policy on every single continent. And in some cases, they’re doing—they’re actually winning, where they’re overtaking the regulatory authorities and making it quite weak, like it is in the U.S. And in some cases in Europe now, there’s more resistance than ever, now that it’s "not in my backyard" politics, "no planting in my country" type of politics.

AMY GOODMAN: Jeffrey Smith, can you compare the Obama administration on biotechnology with the Bush administration?

JEFFREY SMITH: Unfortunately, we were hoping for a lot more success. President Obama, while he was campaigning here in Iowa, promised that he would require labeling of genetically modified crops. And since most Americans say they would avoid GMOs if labeled, that would have eliminated it from the food supply. But, you see, he and the FDA have been promoting the biotechnology. And unfortunately, the Obama administration has not been better than the Bush administration, possibly worse.

For example, the person who was in charge of FDA policy in 1992, Monsanto’s former attorney, Michael Taylor, he allowed GMOs on the market without any safety studies and without labeling, and the policy claimed that the agency was not aware of any information showing that GMOs were significantly different. Seven years later, because of a lawsuit, 44,000 secret internal FDA memos revealed that that policy was a lie. Not only were the scientists at the FDA aware that GMOs were different, they had warned repeatedly that they might create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. But they were ignored, and their warnings were even denied, and the policy went forth allowing the deployment GMOs into the food supply with virtually no safety studies. That person in charge is now the U.S. food safety czar in the Obama administration.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And what is your general assessment of the sweeping reform that the Obama administration pushed through of the FDA, considered one of the biggest reforms of that agency in decades? Your assessment of it?

JEFFREY SMITH: Well, if the FDA were absolutely dedicated to protecting public health, giving them more power makes sense. But investigation after investigation for years, it turns out that they often serve their, quote, "clients," which is industry. Even one-third of their own surveyed members in September revealed that they believe that corporate and special interests really dictates policy in the area of public health. So, my opinion is, giving them more power without first eliminating that bias towards corporations is a dangerous formula. In fact, they are officially mandated with promoting the biotech industry, which is obviously a conflict of interest.

AMY GOODMAN: I know both Eric Schlosser and also Michael Pollan have hailed the food safety legislation, but on the issue of talking to the State Department and what they’re pushing abroad, I want to just say we did call the State Department and did not get a response. We wanted them to come on today’s broadcast.

Finally, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Jeffrey Smith, your assessment?


JEFFREY SMITH: Well, he was our governor here in Iowa, and he was the biotech governor of the year in 2001. And unfortunately, he’s been following that course of action since he has been put in office. They released today the environmental impact statement for alfalfa, where they ignore their own data regarding the increase of pesticides because of GMOs. They ignore the data of their own scientists and other scientists, which show the use of Roundup, which will be promoted through this Roundup Ready alfalfa, is actually very toxic both for the environment and for human health. And so, he, as well as many others of the Obama administration, have been taken essentially from the biotech ranks and are now calling the shots there. And I’m very disappointed.

There was some indication in the EIS, however, for the alfalfa that he might take into consideration concerns about contamination, which we all know is permanent, where the self-propagating genetic pollution of genetically modified foods can outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. It’s being released now without—with very little concern. Finally, we see some ray of light, where they’re actually paying attention, but it’s not enough. It’s not based really on science.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to leave it there, but we will certainly continue to follow this issue, Jeffrey Smith, it’s great to be with you, joining us from Iowa City, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, author of two books, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating and also Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. We’ll link to our stories on Monsanto over the years and of course to our continued coverage of the WikiLeaks cables, the largest trove of U.S. diplomatic documents that have been ever released.

Source:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/23/wikileaks_cables_reveal_us_sought_to

Contributing Stories:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops?
http://www.alternet.org/world/149393/wikileaks%27_most_terrifying_revelation:_just_how_much_our_government_lies_to_us/?page=entire
__________________

Scientists uncover truth about fluoride and other water contaminants


by Anthony Gucciardi
Natural News
January 8 2011


There have been numerous studies highlighting the adverse effects of water fluoridation and other drinking water contaminants, but a slew of new scientific findings have sparked even more opposition to these chemicals than ever before.

Most shockingly, a study has even linked fluoride to lower IQ in children. In the same vein, deadly carcinogens have been found in cities across the United States.

Hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium-6, is a deadly carcinogen that was found in the drinking water of 31 U.S. cities. With the surge of new information exposing our drinking water as toxic sludge, a question arises. Could this information put a stop to the pollution and fluoridation of the public water supply?

Fluoride is added to 70% of the U.S. water supply. Kids who drink this water suffer from decreased cognitive function, according to research published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The study followed 512 children between the ages 8 and 13, with varying degrees of fluoride exposure. One group lived in a Chinese village with high fluoride levels, and the other in a Chinese village with low fluoride levels. The scientists conducting the study even eliminated other variables that may have affected brain health, such as iodine deficiency and lead exposure.

With these variables eliminated, researchers found that the number of intelligent children in the village with low fluoride levels was 350 percent higher than those in the high fluoride village. Even more disturbing, 15% of the highly fluoridated children scored low enough to indicate mental retardation, verses 6% in the other village.

According to Paul Connett, Ph.D., director of the Fluoride Action Network, "This is the 24th study that has found this association, but this study is stronger than the rest because the authors have controlled for key confounding variables and in addition to correlating lowered IQ with levels of fluoride in the water, the authors found a correlation between lowered IQ and fluoride levels in children's blood. This brings us closer to a cause and effect relationship between fluoride exposure and brain damage in children."

In the first ever public analysis of hexavalent chromium in drinking water, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) uncovered even more disturbing information regarding the quality of the country's drinking water. The EWG found that hexavalent chromium was present in the drinking water of 31 U.S. cities. 

This is a chemical that was labeled a "probable carcinogen" in 2008 by the National Toxicology Program. Despite causing cancer in laboratory rats, the federal government allows for a "safe" level of total chromium. This "total" chromium figure also includes trivalent chromium, which is a mineral that the body can actually utilize. What this means is that in many cases, hexavalent chromium could have made up the majority of total chromium in the water supply. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case for many of the 31 U.S. cities tested.

In Noman, Oklahoma, the water contained 200 times what California has declared to be the "safe" level of this carcinogen. California legislatures set this level at 0.06 parts per billion in their recent public health proposal, which means that Noman had around 12 parts per billion. Bethesda and Washington were next on the list with 0.19 parts per billion, more than three times the California limit.

The rise in hexavalent chromium is most likely tied to its industry use, with Pacific Gas & Electric forced to pay $333 million in damages due to leaking the carcinogen into the water of a California town. The federal government, however, is not being forced to pay the millions of people in this country who are regularly consuming deadly tap water.

While fluoride and hexavalent chromium are cause for concern, there are other substances in the country's drinking water that also warrant concern. The first of which is lead, which can enter the water supply through corrosive pipes or improper water treatment. Pathogens, which are infectious agents, can also be found in many cities worldwide. Chlorine, while a hazard itself, actually reacts with other chemicals to create even more poisonous substances. Trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids are two such by-products, which have been linked to cancer and reproductive problems. While it is not possible to discuss the long list of drinking water toxins in depth, as it is too extensive, arsenic and radon are among the other primary chemicals found in the water.

It is important to remember that exposure to these chemicals is not limited to simply drinking the water. Showering and bathing in tap water will lead to the absorption of these substances through the skin, and can account for even more toxic buildup than drinking the water.

The studies are conclusive, and the information is being compiled more steadily than ever before. Water fluoridation and pollution now stands as a mainstream issue that must be addressed. The solution is simple, and all it takes is activism.

The citizens of many countries around the world have successfully eliminated water fluoridation through petitioning their respective governments, and the same can be done in the remaining countries. When the people loudly voice their opposition to the chaotic state of their drinking water, it will be the end of governmental water contamination.

[Editor`s Note: NaturalNews is strongly against the use of all forms of animal testing. We fully support implementation of humane medical experimentation that promotes the health and wellbeing of all living creatures.]

About the author

Anthony Gucciardi is a health activist and wellness researcher, whose goal is centered around educating the general public as to how they may obtain optimum health. He has authored countless articles highlighting the benefits of natural health, as well as exposing the pharmaceutical industry. Anthony is the creator of Shatter Limits (http://www.ShatterLimits.com), a natural health website. Anthony has been accurately interpreting national and international events for years within his numerous political articles. Anthony's articles have been seen by millions around the world, and hosted on multiple top news websites.

Sources:
http://www.naturalnews.com/030948_fluoride_water.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/ontario-fluoride-may-make-minor-difference/article1535873/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121802810.html?sid=ST2010121803715
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/China/Fluoride-in-Water-Linked-to-Lower-IQ-in-Children
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/09/17/manganese-drinking-water-iq-children.html

Google News on Flouride:
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=0z&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=fluoride&oq=fl
_____________________