Bayer Admits GMO Contamination is Out of Control

EXTRACT: Bayer has admitted it has been unable to control the spread of its genetically-engineered organisms despite ‘the best practices [to stop contamination]‘(1). It shows that all outdoors field trials or commercial growing of GE crops must be stopped before our crops are irreversibly contaminated.
—
—
$2 million US dollar verdict against Bayer confirms company’s liability for an uncontrollable technology

Greenpeace welcomes the United States federal jury ruling on 4 December 2009 that Bayer CropScience LP must pay $2 million US dollars to two Missouri farmers after their rice crop was contaminated with an experimental variety of rice that the company was testing in 2006.

This verdict confirms that the responsibility for the consequences of GE (genetic engineering) contamination rests with the company that releases GE crops.

Bayer has admitted it has been unable to control the spread of its genetically-engineered organisms despite ‘the best practices [to stop contamination]‘(1). It shows that all outdoors field trials or commercial growing of GE crops must be stopped before our crops are irreversibly contaminated.

A report prepared for Greenpeace International concluded that the total costs incurred throughout the world as a result of the contamination are estimated to range from $741 million to $1.285 billion US dollars.(2) The verdict indicates that Bayer is liable for what could turn out to be a large proportion of these costs, as it awards damages in the first two of more than 1,000 currently pending lawsuits. The decision must be used to support all claims for losses incurred by other US farmers whose crops have suffered from GE contamination.

(1) Bayers Defense lawyer, Mark Ferguson as reported in Harris, A. 2009.
Bayer Blamed at Trial for Crops ‘Contaminated’ by Modified Rice. Bloomberg News 4th November 2009, available at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aT…

(2) E.N. Blue (2007) Risky Business. Economic and regulatory impacts from the unintended release of genetically engineered rice varieties into the rice merchandising system of the US. Report prepared for Greenpeace International, available online at http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press….

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19777.cfm

Judge Rules GMOs Violate Environmental Law

For those of us wondering how bad the untested genetically modified food experiment is going to get before it gets any better, a ray of hope was just offered. A San Francisco judge, the very honorable, Judge Jeffrey White just ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture`s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service violated environmental law because of inadequate environmental testing of genetically modified sugar beets. He ruled that the agency failed to see if the genetically altered beets would eventually share their funky pesticide proof genes with other crops. Judge White noted that pollen from sugar beets can be blown long distances and pollinate other crops, including table beets and chard.

White wrote, “The potential elimination of farmers` choice to grow nongenetically engineered crops, or consumers` choice to eat nongenetically engineered food … has a significant effect on the human environment.”

The judge ordered the federal agency to produce an environmental impact statement after taking a hard look at the issue. A lesser look by the agency found that the sharing of genetically altered pollen was no cause for concern.

This is the second blow for Monsanto and according the Associated Press, a “similar ruling in 2007 forced a ban on planting Roundup Ready alfalfa until a re-examination was done.” That environmental impact statement has yet to be completed, so it effectively halted the growth and sale of GMO alfalfa.

About half of the sugar beets used in the United States are currently Monsanto`s genetically modified variety and the judge didn`t rule about the harvest of the current crop.

If you haven`t been already, it`s wise to avoid sugar for a while to make sure you`re not consuming genetically modified sugar beets.

Genetically modified foods have been linked to smaller, less developed brains, livers and testicles. GMOs have been found to enlarge other tissues, including the pancreas and intestines. They`ve been known to atrophy the liver, while causing structural changes in the stomach and intestines. GMOs have additionally been linked to infertility and allergies. Here`s more: http://www.saynotogmos.org/paper.pdf.

All of the health problems associated with consuming genetically modified foods made the news in Europe years ago, when genetically modified crops were new. The citizens of Europe rebelled, which is why genetically altered foods are currently banned, or mostly labeled, in Europe.

In the U.S., the news wasn`t covered by mainstream outlets. As a consequence genetically modified foods are not labeled and consumers remain largely unaware. Genetically modified ingredients are available in the large majority of processed foods, and in the U.S. it`s actually illegal for manufacturers to label GMO products, as GMO products.

U.S. officials have been cited as saying that such labeling would “confuse consumers,” and it`s widely known that the large majority of consumers don`t want to eat genetically modified foods. Their logic has been: if consumers knew which foods were genetically modified, they would avoid them and thereby make the wrong choice. The official said to have explained the government’s logic at an international Codex meeting later denied doing so.

Organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservation groups brought the lawsuit. According to Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff, on Oct. 30 they will ask the judge for an injunction to ban new plantings until the environmental impact statement is complete.

An American Sugar Beet Growers Association spokesman said the association is going to fight for the right to grow genetically modified sugar beets. It wasn`t disclosed if, or how much, funding the association receives from Monsanto.

Genetically modified sugar beets are currently grown in eleven states and on 1.1 million acres.

http://www.naturalnews.com/027177_food_GMOs_GMO.html

Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively in South Africa

South African farmers suffered millions of dollars in lost income when 82,000 hectares of genetically-manipulated corn (maize) failed to produce hardly any seeds.The plants look lush and healthy from the outside. Monsanto has offered compensation.

Monsanto blames the failure of the three varieties of corn planted on these farms, in three South African provinces,on alleged ‘underfertilisation processes in the laboratory”. Some 280 of the 1,000 farmers who planted the three varieties of Monsanto corn this year, have reported extensive seedless corn problems.

Urgent investigation demanded
However environmental activitist Marian Mayet, director of the Africa-centre for biosecurity in Johannesburg, demands an urgent government investigation and an immediate ban on all GM-foods, blaming the crop failure on Monsanto’s genetically-manipulated technology.

Willem Pelser, journalist of the Afrikaans Sunday paper Rapport, writes from Nelspruit that Monsanto has immediately offered the farmers compensation in three provinces – North West, Free State and Mpumalanga. The damage-estimates are being undertaken right now by the local farmers’ cooperative, Grain-SA. Monsanto claims that ‘less than 25%’ of three different corn varieties were ‘insufficiently fertilised in the laboratory’.

80% crop failure
However Mayet says Monsanto was grossly understating the problem.According to her own information, some farms have suffered up to 80% crop failures. The centre is strongly opposed to GM-food and biologically-manipulated technology in general.

“Monsanto says they just made a mistake in the laboratory, however we say that biotechnology is a failure.You cannot make a ‘mistake’ with three different varieties of corn.’

Demands urgent government investigation:
“We have been warning against GM-technology for years, we have been warning Monsanto that there will be problems,’ said Mayet. She calls for an urgent government investigation and an immediate ban on all GM-foods in South Africa.

Of the 1,000 South African farmers who planted Monsanto’s GM-maize this year, 280 suffered extensive crop failure, writes Rapport.

Monsanto’s local spokeswoman Magda du Toit said the ‘company is engaged in establishing the exact extent of the damage on the farms’. She did not want to speculate on the extent of the financial losses suffered right now.

Managing director of Monsanto in Africa, Kobus Lindeque, said however that ‘less than 25% of the Monsanto-seeded farms are involved in the loss’. He says there will be ‘a review of the seed-production methods of the three varieties involved in the failure, and we will made the necessary adjustments.’

He denied that the problem was caused in any way by ‘bio-technology’. Instead, there had been ‘insufficient fertilisation during the seed-production process’.

And Grain-SA’s Nico Hawkins says they ‘are still support GM-technology; ‘We will support any technology which will improve production.’ see

He also they were ‘satisfied with Monsanto’s handling of the case,’ and said Grain-SA was ‘closely involved in the claims-adjustment methodology’ between the farmers and Monsanto.

Farmers told Rapport that Monsanto was ‘bending over backwards to try and accommodate them in solving the problem.

“It’s a very good gesture to immediately offer to compensate the farmers for losses they suffered,’ said Kobus van Coller, one of the Free State farmers who discovered that his maize cobs were practically seedless this week.

“One can’t see from the outside whether a plant is unseeded. One must open up the cob leaves to establish the problem,’ he said. The seedless cobs show no sign of disease or any kind of fungus. They just have very few seeds, often none at all.

The South African supermarket-chain Woolworths already banned GM-foods from its shelves in 2000. However South African farmers have been producing GM-corn for years: they were among the first countries other than the United States to start using the Monsanto products.

The South African government does not require any labelling of GM-foods. Corn is the main staple food for South Africa’s 48-million people.

The three maize varieties which failed to produce seeds were designed with a built-in resistance to weed-killers, and manipulated to increase yields per hectare, Rapport writes.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270101

EU On Track To Grant Quick Approval For Monsanto Soybean

*Sad, sad, sad…you know, Europe did just fine before Monsanto. Unfortunatey, I am afraid it won’t do fine AFTER Monsanto. Once again, the people’s desires are thwarted.*

BRUSSELS -(Dow Jones)- European Union governments late Wednesday couldn’t agree on whether to allow Monsanto Co. (MON) to import a new genetically modified soybean, sending the decision back to the European Commission, the E.U.’s executive arm, where it is likely to be approved.

It means the soybean, known as Roundup Ready 2, is likely to gain approval faster than many other biotech products that have been stuck in the E.U.’s complicated regulatory system. That is encouraging for some in the industry who have long complained that the E.U.’s system is unnecessarily slow.

“It’s moved faster than is usual in our industry,” said Nathalie Moll of EuropaBio, the lobbying group for the biotech industry in the E.U., “but that’s the speed it should move at.”

Approval usually takes three years or more. The E.U is on track to approve Roundup Ready 2 in a little more than two years after Monsanto first sought approval. The issue of soybean imports has put pressure on the E.U. to speed up its approval process. Imported soybeans form a crucial source of protein for the continent’s livestock. The Monsanto soybean will be planted over millions of acres in the U.S. in 2009. Without approval, European importers might not ship soybeans from the U.S. for fear that their cargoes will become contaminated with the Monsanto soybean.

European farmers import about 75% of their soybeans, mainly from the U.S., Brazil and Argentina.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200811200658DOWJONESDJONLINE000495_FORTUNE5.htm

MILLIONS AGAINST MONSANTO campaign!!!

*My favorite company *

Hugh Grant
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
Monsanto Company
800 North Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, MO-63167
(314) 694-1000

Dear Mr. Grant:

We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned about the direction Monsanto Company has taken in the past decade with respect to sustainable agriculture and farmers’ rights. Right now we are at a critical crossroads in history, and I fear that Monsanto Company is not contributing to the nation’s welfare with a “profits over people” attitude.

Monsanto Company has embarked on a vicious campaign against family farmers in the North American heartland, as well as across the world. These hardworking farmers are the backbone of our nation’s food supply and national security. The current climate of insecurity has been exacerbated by your company’s policies of intimidation, lawsuits and defamation.

Monsanto’s legal actions against Percy Schmeiser, the Rodney Nelson family, and the Oakhurst Dairy for example, are deplorable attacks, and do not reflect your “Stake in the Ground” pledge to honesty and decency.

The North American farm sector is becoming a veritable wasteland. Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered crops have increased pesticide use, destroyed key export markets and threaten global food safety. Over 90% of American consumers want genetically engineered foods labeled, while 60% or more want GE-Free food for themselves and for their families.

Family farmers have the right to produce the safe, sustainable food without fear of intimidation and litigation. Consumers have the right to choose food that guarantees their families’ health and safety. I demand that Monsanto change course by adopting the following practices:

1. Stop intimidating small family farmers
2. Stop force-feeding untested and unlabeled genetically engineered foods on consumers
3. Stop using billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to subsidize genetically engineered crops- cotton, soybeans, corn, and canola.

Sincerely,

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1265

Six Reasons Why Obama Appointing Monsanto’s Buddy, Former Iowa Governor Vilsack, for USDA Head Would be a Terrible Idea

* Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack’s support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn:

http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/Oct/msg00057.html

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/drugsincorn102302.cfm

* The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor’s Biotechnology Partnership.

http://www.bio.org/news/pressreleases/newsitem.asp?id=200…

* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.

* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government’s possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.

* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocated across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack’s history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west coast even made this youtube animation about Vilsack

The airplane in this animation is a referral to the controversy that Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto’s jet.

*Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15573.cfm