| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/15/2009 12:24 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
Ready for Dicamba Ready GM crops?
Herbicide tolerant GM crops near obsolete
It has become all too clear that genetically modified (GM) herbicide-tolerant crops are not sustainable, as herbicide resistant weeds soon appear, rendering the GM crops obsolete [1, 2] ( Roundup Ready Sudden Death, Superweeds, Allergens... , SiS 28) . In addition, herbicide-tolerant crops may themselves become ‘volunteer' weeds. Monsanto Company had recognized the problem, and created patented herbicide mixtures as early as 2001 to combat weeds resistant to its formulation of glyphosate (Roundup) and volunteer ‘Roundup Ready' GM crops [3]. Herbicide-resistant weeds arise either by mutation or by gene flow from the transgenic crops [4]. The herbicide-tolerance gene from GM crops has been found to transfer to weedy relatives [5]. In short, the useful life of the original GM herbicide-tolerant crops is rapidly nearing its end.
So, crops resistant to the phenoxy herbicide Dicamba have been developed as a replacement for the near-obsolete tolerance to glyphosate, as well as glufosinate or bromoxynil. Dicamba is produced by BASF chemical corporation and marketed as Banvel, the dimethylamine salt, or as Vanquish the diglycolamine salt [6]. “Inert” ingredients in the formulations include 3,6-dichlorosalysilic acid, dimethylnitosamine, and ethylene glycol and 2,7-dichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
Dicamba an old companion of “agent orange”
Dicamba is actually an old herbicide that served alongside “agent orange” in Vietnam [7], and has been resurrected as an environmentally friendly chemical through the magic of public relations.
Dicamba degradation was characterized in the bacterium Psuedomonas maltophilia , which can utilize the herbicide as a sole carbon source. Three separate enzymes, an oxygenase, a ferredoxin and a reductase act sequentially to convert Dicamba to its first degradation product 3,6-dichlorsalyicylic acid [8]. The primary patent for Dicamba degrading organisms including transgenic crops was assigned to the University of Nebraska. The genes for the Dicamba oxygenase, ferridoxin and reductase were used to transform crop plants. No selectable markers were required because the transformants could be identified by the fluorescence of 3,6-dichlorsalyicylic acid [9]. Success has been reported in transforming the soybean with only the dicamba monooxygenase gene driven by a promoter from peanut chlorotic streak virus and enhancer from the tobacco etch virus, a chloroplast transit peptide gene from pea for localization to the chloroplast and a transcription terminator from pea. In this transformation, which localized the Dicamba monooxygenase to the chloroplast, the ferridixin and reductase genes were not required to maintain active Dicamba degradation [10].
Between 2004 and 2007 over 40 field-test releases of Dicamba resistant corn, cotton or soybean were approved in the United States; all undertaken by Monsanto Corporation, except for one test each from the University of Kansas and BASF Corporation. Several field test releases included crops stacked with transgenes for glyphosate tolerance, or for yield, or oil composition. With the exception of the University of Kansas release, the donors of the Dicamba resistance transgenes were designated confidential business information (CBI), though CBI constructs are unlikely to be much different from the Psuedomonas maltophilia genes used in the Kansas release [11]. However, the use of CBI designations in field releases where the public may be exposed to toxic products is both unwise and unwarranted. Environmental impact studies do not appear to be available for the numerous field tests releases of Dicamba resistant GM crops or GM crops with stacked traits, and the locations of the tests are withheld from those who may be exposed.
Dicamba not safe nor environmentally friendly
The toxicity of the Dicamba herbicide is worth reviewing. Both pure Dicamba and Banvel proved to increase sister-chromatid exchange in human lymphocytes. The study concluded that Dicamba is a DNA damage agent and potentially hazardous to human [12]. Dicamba proved genotoxic in mutation tests using transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana plants [13]. Dicamba was found to be a peroxisome proliferator in rats, an activity associated with liver cancer in rodents [14]. Dicamba is certainly not safe or environmentally friendly, and its increased deployment must be resisted.
Dicamba is relatively persistent in the environment and it is only slowly degraded in turf grass [15]. In Saskatchewan, Dicamba was found to leach into the South Saskatchewan river, a source of drinking water for urban populations [16]. High levels of Dicamba were observed in rivers draining two prairie watersheds, Manitoba streams draining agricultural lands were elevated during the herbicide application period in May and June [17].
Predictably, the overuse of herbicides in GM crops has resulted in the GM crops becoming obsolete as weeds become herbicide resistant. Introducing GM crops resistant to an old polluting phenoxy herbicide seems like a measure of sheer desperation, turning an environmental disaster into a real catastrophe.
The only way to deal with the problem of herbicide resistant weeds and volunteers is to return to sustainable, organic agriculture, free of polluting herbicides.
[link to www.i-sis.org.uk] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/15/2009 12:33 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
Genetically Modified Alfalfa: Scope of an Improved Environmental Assessment
This report was submitted to the USDA on behalf of ISIS
In 2006 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) determined that glyphosate tolerant alfalfa was no longer subject to regulation by government. In 2007, a court action ruled that the deregulation process was invalid and contrary to the national environmental protection act, as the APHIS environmental assessment (EA) was faulty. APHIS now intends to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics International alfalfa lines designated events J101 and J163. Before that, it is seeking public comment on the scope of the pending EA (Docket No. APHIS–2007–0044: Environmental Impact Statement; Determination of Regulated Status of Alfalfa Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to the Herbicide Glyphosate [link to www.regulations.gov] This notice identifies potential issues and alternatives that will be addressed by the EIS and requests public comment to further delineate the scope of the issues and regulatory alternatives. Comments had be received by 6 February 2008.
The original faulty EA - USDA/APHIS Environmental Assessment Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics International Petition 04-110-01p for Determination of Non-regulated Status for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Events J101 and J163 October 2004 - was judged inadequate by Charles Breyer on 13 February 2007. Lawyers from the Center for Food Safety raised a number of questions particularly related to the spread of the modified genes to organic and conventional alfalfa crops and on the development of glyphosate resistant genes. Judge Breyer ruled that APHIS failed to answer these substantial questions, concluding instead that any environmental impact is insignificant because gene transmission is the problem of the organic and conventional farmers and weeds always develop resistance to herbicides. As such reasons are not “convincing” and do not demonstrate that the agency took a “hard look” at the potential environmental impacts of its deregulation decision, he ordered APHIS to prepare an environmental impact statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act as requested by the plaintiff.
The judgement exposed the cavalier manner in which APHIS had put forward opinions based on little or no evidence, making claims such as, in the event of gene transmission, the impact is not significant because it is the organic and conventional farmers’ responsibility to ensure that such contamination does not occur. The GM alfalfa rested on a “no significant impact” decision based on this absurd conclusion in APHIS’ original EA, which made no inquiry into whether those farmers who do not want to grow genetically engineered alfalfa can, in fact, protect their crops from contamination. It also reasoned that federal organic standards do not require the testing of inputs or products for genetically engineered genes and that the unintentional presence of the engineered genes will not “necessarily” constitute a violation of national organic standards [1].
Judge Breyer’s order did not deal with the potential impact on the modified alfalfa on the health of humans and animals and APHIS’ opinion that the GM alfalfa was harmless to humans and to animals was accepted in the absence of any evidence that it was so.
The scope of the new EIS proposed by APHIS [2] for consultation include, for example, consideration of impacts on organic alfalfa production, weed resistance to glyphosate, gene flow from GM alfalfa seed production, economic impacts on organic farmers. Will increased glyphosate usage related to the GM crop affect soil and water quality? What about impacts of the glyphosate usage on threatened or endangered species, or the health and safety of human beings? What about the health and safety of human beings and livestock exposed to GM alfalfa, such as allergy and other immune effects? Can the adverse effects of using GM alfalfa be mitigated? What are the consequences of mitigation on the coexistence of organic and conventional alfalfa production and export? Are there other potential impacts?
All of the scope items listed by APHIS, and more are worth fully investigating. We must request the EIS to address a fuller range of topics than is required in the court order, and discussion should be open to findings and reports completed after the defective EA was completed in 2004.
One aspect requiring fuller comment is the mindset of those preparing the EIS. As pointed out in an earlier comment submitted on the original EA of 2004 [3], there was an apparent bias toward unsupported opinions rather than references to relevant empirical studies. It is imperative that the new EIS should be produced by a fresh group of APHIS staff members who had not been involved in the original EA, those hew members should be committed towards full and unbiased reporting based on empirical evidence.
This is No. 40 of ISIS’ submissions to USDA.
[link to www.i-sis.org.uk] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 601353
5/15/2009 12:40 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
Non-GM Breakthroughs Leave GM Behind
Zambia gets better harvests from non-GM maize
Although drought-prone Zambia is still facing problems, huge improvements have been reported in its maize harvests – its main staple crop. Production is reported to have changed dramatically after President Levy Mwanawasa took over from Frederick Chiluba in 2001. He promoted innovations such as mixed farming and conservation farming. Mwanawasa rejected GM maize and encouraged the growing of non-GM maize, resulting in bumper harvests for the past three years [6].
Ironically, when the Zambian government rejected GM maize in 2002 [7] (Africa Unites Against GM to Opt for Self-sufficiency, SiS 16), there were calls from the US Ambassador to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization for its leaders to be tried “for the highest crimes against humanity in the highest courts of the world” [8].
Non-GM crop science gets £13 million boost in the UK
UK crop scientists have been awarded a £13.3m boost in funding to carry out research aimed at delivering benefits for farmers and consumers. Researchers say they will not be producing GM crops. Prof. David Pink at University of Warwick, Coventry, whose team has been awarded £500 000 to identify genes in broccoli that will extend its shelf life and maintain its nutritional value longer, said [9], “We are not going down that [GM] route because GM is not acceptable at the moment, and not acceptable to our plant breeding partner].”
GM drought-tolerant maize way behind non-GM methods
In March 2007, the South African authorities gave Monsanto permission to conduct GM drought-tolerant maize field trials in South Africa. The African Centre for Biosafety released a report on the issue, pointing out that drought tolerance GM maize is at least 8-10 years away from commercial release, and points out that traditional breeding, marker assisted selection, and building up organic content of the soil are proven and immediately available methods of dealing with drought [10]. Nevertheless GM drought-tolerant crops are being used as PR tools by biotech lobbyists to promote acceptance of GM crops, to expand existing markets and develop new markets.
New non-GM drought-resistant maize in the Philippines
Philippine scientist Dr Antonio Mercado at the University of Philippines Los Banos has developed a new non-GM maize variety that was able to survive a drought for 29 days [11].
Indigenous rice better than GM-rice at dealing with stress
Navdanaya, a New Delhi-based NGO headed by Vandana Shiva, together with farmers from nine Indian states, has developed a register of over 2 000 indigenous rice varieties. They say GM rice strains are not only costly to cultivate but also perform poorly compared to native strains in fighting pests, diseases and environmental fluctuations. Several indigenous rice strains adopted by the Indian farmers can withstand extremes of climatic conditions, survive submergence for a fortnight and even withstand salinity with great success [12].
New Non-GM maize a body blow to grain borer
The larger grain borer is taking a beating from CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre) breeders in Kenya, as a new non-GM African maize withstands the onslaught of one of the most damaging pests. CIMMYT researchers found resistance to the borer in the Centre’s germplasm bank, in maize seed originally from the Caribbean [13]. The bank holds 25 000 native maize races.
Non-GM process for allergy-free peanuts
A researcher at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University has developed a simple non-GM process to make allergen-free peanuts. An estimated one percent of children in the United States suffer from the allergy. The inventor, Dr Mohamed Ahmedna, is optimizing the process further to remove allergens from other foods [14].
While we do not have enough information on the process to judge any potential downsides, it is noteworthy that a seemingly straightforward solution has been found to a problem that GM proponents claim requires the use of GM.
Non-GM salt-tolerant wheat to bring life to dead land
Scientists at Australia’s Molecular Plant Breeding CRC are using marker assisted breeding to identify salt-tolerant wheat varieties which could allow farmers to crop agricultural land lost to salinity across Australia’s wheat belt. Some 67 percent of the dryland cropping area in Australia is affected by salinity, resulting in meagre yields [15].
Scientists developed non-GM drought-tolerant canola species
Scientists based in Victoria, Australia, have developed a new species of drought tolerant canola that could make up to 1.5 million hectares of drought-prone farmland in Australia more productive and profitable. Traditional breeding and molecular marker assisted selection were used [16].
The breakthrough comes after pro-GM lobbyists persuaded the Australian states of Victoria and New South Wales to lift their moratorium on GM plantings, partly based on claims that GM would provide drought tolerant crops. However, Robert Horsch, Monsanto's vice president, has admitted that such crops are actually not so easy to develop, while Christopher Horner, another Monsanto spokesperson, has admitted such GM crops are years away from commercial production [17].
Gates Foundation supports non-GM biofortified sweet potato in Africa
Biofortification alliance HarvestPlus has received a US$ 6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to introduce a nutritionally improved orange sweet potato into the diets of the undernourished in East Africa. The orange sweet potato is rich in beta-carotene, an essential building block of vitamin A, which helps to prevent blindness [18].
According to a BBC report, only a “relatively small” amount of HarvestPlus’s work in biofortification involves GM. Harvest Plus’s Bonnie McClafferty said [19], “We’ve been able to experience great success in actually finding varieties to do conventional plant breeding with.” Harvest Plus has recently announced the discovery of a new non-GM method of improving the vitamin A precursor content of maize [20].
[link to www.i-sis.org.uk] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 659821
5/15/2009 12:58 PM | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
 |
| Phil Harmonic 
superconductor
User ID: 760572
10/18/2009 2:30 AM
 | | Re: The World According to Monsanto - Full Documentary | Quote |
Here's another good video of a talk by Jeffrey Smith on the dangers of GMO foods. A must-watch intro to why GM foods are hazardous to our health:
[link to vimeo.com] |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | |
|
