Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson needs to ensure a comprehensive review of the labelling of genetically engineered (GE) food ingredients and GE food safety in New Zealand, now that 40 different GE food applications have been approved for use in New Zealand, including foods derived from 61 GE plant lines (1), according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand. Soil & Health says the latest approvals (2) have gone through despite an increase in evidence of the health risks from GE food.
GE plant lines approved include canola, corn, potato, cotton, soy bean, lucerne (alfalfa), sugarbeet, and rice. Further GE corn, cotton and soybean applications are being processed. Fourteen approved microbial-based food processing aids have also been approved with another being considered.
The Food Safety Minister’s meeting in Adelaide last Friday with the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (Ministerial Council) (3) ended with a joint communiqué (4) that included, “agreeing in principle to commission an independent, comprehensive review of food labelling law and policy.” However Soil & Health is concerned that the “independence” is unlikely to be more than a sham, and points to repeated GE food safety concerns by expert independent scientific researchers being consistently overridden.”
“Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), which takes direction from the Ministerial Council, has never yet turned down an application for the introduction of a genetically engineered food line, and its past so-called independent advice has invariably used research supplied by the mega food industry applicants,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“The ‘independent panel’ to undertake the Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy will be appointed by the Ministerial Council, and if it is anything like last year’s New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s (NZFSA) so-called independent review of some of its decisions, it will be a rubber stamp for whatever convenient business focused direction the Ministerial Council wants.”
“The NZFSA review including A1-A2 milk, artificial sweetener aspartame and Campylobacter, lacked the independence required. In a fox-in-charge-of-the-henhouse scenario, the NZFSA, which was being criticised for its decisions, decided on a review, drafted the terms of reference, and then chose its own reviewer. There were no surprises in the review’s findings.”
“This exercise, as in the NZFSA review, is unlikely to be anything more than a whitewash of FSANZ practices and a Trojan horse for even more harmonisation with international food standards regulator Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex). New Zealanders will lose even more sovereignty and control of their food supply and its safety.”
“However Soil & Health and New Zealand consumers will be blissed out if Kate Wilkinson gets in now and reviews just how many of the numerous GE food ingredients are not identified on the supermarket shelves. While she is putting that right, she should also get Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling (MCoOL) underway,” said Mr Browning. “The Minister doesn’t need the Aussies for either of those, the Aussies have MCoOL already, and any of the Minister’s staff can show what a joke GE food labelling (5) is in NZ. When did NZFSA last check on compliance of the weak rules?”
“NZFSA’s own broad based Consumer Forum voted unanimously for MCoOL, yet NZFSA continues to advise government against it, and like FSANZ advises that GE foods are safe.”
“The Indian government has just overridden its GE crop regulator and put on hold the permission for GE aubergine there, because of protest and scientific criticism. One such scientist who assessed the GE food’s applicant Monsanto-Mahyco’s molecular transformation methods, New Zealand’s Professor Jack Heinemann from the University of Canterbury, was quoted saying, “I have never seen less professionalism in the presentation and quality assurance of molecular data than in this study,”
Heinemann, who is genuinely independent, has also questioned FSANZ decisions affecting New Zealanders exposure to GE foods but again the applicant’s own substandard science was preferred by FSANZ. (6)
“Independent animal GE food feeding studies including foods approved for New Zealand are increasingly showing food safety risks, yet FSANZ has yet to turn down an application. Studies include showing multi generational infant mortalities and disorders of the reproductive, immune and blood clotting systems. This can include increased cases of pre-cancerous growths. (7,8,9)
“While buying organic food avoids exposure to GE food components, Soil & Health points out the broad consumer preference to not be eating GE foods, yet current GE labelling requirements are both weak and under-enforced,” said Mr Browning.
“Soil & Health maxim, Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, is a lead to a sustainable environment, safe and nutritious food, and a healthy nation. Consumers should at least have the choice and the Minister can ensure they do.”
REFERENCES
(1) http://www.foodstandards.govt.nz/standardsdevelopment/standardsworkplan.cfm
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/gmfoods/gmcurrentapplication1030.cfm
(2) http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/standardsdevelopment/notificationcirculars/index.cfm
· Application A614 – Food derived from Glyphosate-tolerant Cotton Line GHB614
· Application A615 – Food derived from Insect-protected Cotton Line COT67B
(3) Membership of the Ministerial Council comprises Health Ministers from New Zealand most Australian States and Territories, the Australian Government, as well as other Ministers from related portfolios (Primary Industries, Consumer Affairs etc) where these have been nominated by their jurisdictions. All jurisdictions, except New Zealand, have nominated a Lead Minister for voting purposes. New Zealand has nominated their Minister for Food Safety as Lead Minister for voting purposes. It appears to be a one New Zealand Minister to twelve Australian ratio.
(4) http://www.alga.asn.au/newsroom/communiques/03.anzfrmc/20081024.php Comprehensive Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy. The meeting agreed in principle to commission an independent, comprehensive review of food labelling law and policy. The review will be undertaken by an independent expert panel. The expert panel will comprise prominent individuals appointed by the Ministerial Council who collectively possess knowledge and expertise in the fields of public health, regulatory, economics/public policy, law and consumer behaviour and business. The review is to be chaired by an independent public policy expert.
(5) http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/gm-ge/gmfoods.htm
Extracts from New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s Frequently Asked Questions further below.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/organisms/regulation/food-labelling.html
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Standard_1_5_2_GM_v112……..pdf
(6) MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from “sites.google.com” claiming to be MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from “sites.google.com” claiming to be http://sites.google.com/site/therightbiotechnology/free-chapter-downloads
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Response to INBI submission on A549 DAR FINAL
(7) Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, by Jeffrey M. Smith http://permaculture.org.au/2009/05/20/doctors-warn-avoid-genetically-modified-food/ Full text with references copied further below.
(8) GM food can cause cancer
Down to Earth, October 31 2009
http://downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20091031&filename=inv&sec_id=14&sid=1
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11612-qgm-food-can-cause-cancerq-seralini
French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini unmasked the dangers of genetically modified brinjal (aubergine), intended for commercial production in India. He shared with Savvy Soumya Misra his findings on Bt brinjal and Roundup Ready soybean(9) GE Soy Rat Feeding Study
In the group GM-soy there was a high level of pup mortality in the firstgeneration, underdevelopment of some pups, and a total absence of a second generation. These effects were not observed in the other groups. It is concluded that a diet incorporating the GM soy line 40.3.2 (approved for use in NZ) can have a negative influence on the fertility, health and posterity of rats.
The full Russian version of the paper is at:
http://www.science-education.ru/download/2009/05/2009_05_02.pdf
Full Text References (5,7)
(5) Extracts from New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s Frequently Asked Questions;
Genetically Modified Foods: Labelling and Safety
What is Genetically Modified (GM) food?
GM food is a food or ingredient that is produced from a genetically modified organism and is different from its conventional counterpart.
Genetic modification (GM) or genetic engineering (GE), is a process for altering specific genes of a living organism to change its characteristics.
Is there GM food in New Zealand?
Currently in New Zealand:
o No GM crops are grown commercially.
o No GM fruit, vegetables or meat are sold.
o Processed foods can contain GM ingredients but must be labelled accordingly.
What GM food can be sold in New Zealand?
GM ingredients can only be sold in New Zealand if Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) has assessed them for safety and they have been approved by the FSANZ Board and cleared by all Australian and New Zealand ministers responsible for food.
GM ingredients that are approved are derived from GM crops such as corn, canola, soybean and sugarbeet. Foods containing approved GM ingredients must then be labelled accordingly.
How do people know if what they are buying contains GM material?
Since 7 December 2002, accurate labelling is required for foods containing GM DNA or protein, or having altered characteristics (e.g., soybeans with high oleic acid content).
What does a label look like?
Where a food has to be labelled as GM, the information will usually be in the ingredients list. For example a label for bread containing a GM ingredient could look like this:
Ingredients: wheat flour, yeast, soy flour (genetically modified), water, vegetable oil, sugar, salt, emulsifiers (471, 472E), preservative (282), enzyme (amylase). If you want to find out more about a product, you can contact the manufacturer directly, often through a toll-free number on the label.
What about ‘GM-Free’ labelling?
Negative content labelling such as ‘GM-free’ labelling is not addressed as part of the labelling standard.
What foods must be labelled?
The labelling requirement covers all packaged and bulk foods. The law says:
Food that contains genetically modified DNA or protein must be labelled. This includes any food, food ingredient, food additive, food-processing aid or flavouring that contains modified DNA or protein. Flavourings that make up less than 0.1% of a food are exempt from this requirement.
Food that has altered characteristics as a result of genetic modification must be labelled, even if no GM material is present in the finished product. For example, if soyabeans are genetically modified to produce oil that is higher in oleic acid, that oil must be labelled. Does this cover all GM ingredients all the time?
If an ingredient unintentionally contains GM material that is less than 1% of that ingredient then it does not need to be labelled. Food businesses are required to take all reasonable steps to avoid this happening. Flavourings that make up less than 0.1% of a food are also exempt from this requirement.
Why do we allow a tolerance before labelling is required?
There is an allowance for unintentional presence of GM content up to 1% before a ingredient must be labelled. This recognises that, even with the best of intentions, occasionally some cross-contamination of different foods is possible. For example, intermixing may arise from use of the same transport containers or vehicles for GM and non-GM foods or ingredients.
Does GM labelling apply to takeaways and food prepared in restaurants?
The GM labelling requirement applies to all packaged and bulk foods, but does not apply to food prepared in restaurants, cafes and takeaways. This is the same as most other food labelling requirements. If concerned, you can ask whether it contains any GM ingredients before you choose to buy it.
(7) Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food By Jeffrey M. Smith
Full text with references follows;
On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”
More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”
Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.
Pregnant women and babies at great risk
Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[2]
The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks – compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]
When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]
Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9]
In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.
Food designed to produce toxin
GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt – produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis – has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.
The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.
Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[11],[12]
The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, Sunday India reported “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[14]
GMOs provoke immune reactions
AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation” – all on the rise in the US.
According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”[15] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16] A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[17]
GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[18] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[19] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[20] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.
Animals dying in large numbers
In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[21] In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.
In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[22]
Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23]
In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks.[24] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25]
Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us
The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.
When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.
Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied
Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[27] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.
Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases
AAEM states “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[28]
Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[29]
Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.
This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood – but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.
If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[30]
To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”
Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.
If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.
International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t have the data to show that their products are safe.
www.ResponsibleTechnology.org,
info@responsibletechnology.org
——————————————————————————–
[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace Canada, October 25, 2002.
[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[5] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[6] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
[7] Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
[8] Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008
[9] Jerry Rosman, personal communication, 2006
[10] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea,” Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),” Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.
[11] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).
[12] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.
[13] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.
[14] Sunday India, October, 26, 2008
[15] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John
[16] John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstu…
[17] Alberto Finamore, et al, “Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice,” J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533–11539, November 14, 2008
[18] See L Zolla, et al, “Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications,” J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7); and Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.
[19] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005
[20] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
[21] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
[22] Personal communication and visit, January 2009.
[23] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007
[24] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.
[25] Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,” Le Monde, 14 December 2004; referencing, John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
[26] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from “outbind:” claiming to be [27] See memos at www.biointegrity.org
[28] José Domingo, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants : A Review of the Published Literature,” Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2007, vol. 47, no8, pp. 721-733
[29] Angela Hall, “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMOs”, The Leader-Post (Canada), 26 April 2005.
[30] Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, “Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend,” Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25
ERMAs Chemical Cowboy Approach To Methyl Bromide Branded Reckless
/in Health, Media Releases, Organic CommunityERMA’s methyl bromide control recommendations, released yesterday, are among the most reckless in the world with little regard for human and environmental safety, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ. (1)
“Releasing a gas that seriously depletes our ozone layer and is a known neurotoxin, and allowing bystanders to be as close as 50 metres from the release of up to 1000kg of that gas is outrageous. This has to be one of ERMA’s worst,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.(2)
Tonnes of methyl bromide fumigant gas are released to air from under tarpaulins or ships holds following each log fumigation, with smaller amounts being released from containers used for fumigation of imported and export goods.
“With no mandatory air modelling recommended, monitoring is useless and fumigators are only making assumptions of where this invisible, odourless and dangerous fumigant will go. It should be asked why ERMA puts restrictions on anything. This report has to be one of the clearest examples of how New Zealand’s environmental, health and safety regulatory bodies are failing the community.”
The recommendations are part of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s (ERMA) current reassessment of methyl bromide. The reassessment comes at a time when log exports are soaring. Export log fumigations account for more than 80% of the methyl bromide used in New Zealand. Although originally aiming to phase out the use of methyl bromide gas by next year as part of the ozone-focused Montreal Protocol, New Zealand is now using close to 10 times the amount of methyl bromide gas than it was in 2001.
“The dominant focus of ERMA’s report is on effects to the market economy. This means ERMA is functioning more as an Economic Risk Management Authority. The environmental and human safety hazards are clearly secondary to New Zealand’s big business interests,” said Mr Browning.
“Soil & Health is not opposed to the use of methyl bromide for fumigation for biosecurity purposes either, but the release of hundreds of tonnes of the extremely toxic gas near local communities and its inevitable effect on climate change is unacceptable.”
“Recapturing the gas, as is done in Nelson and overseas, should have been demanded by ERMA throughout New Zealand, and gas recapture infrastructure quickly developed by the log exporters. However cost has once again been allowed to come before the health and safety of New Zealanders.”
Tasmania has already made methyl bromide recapture mandatory for quarantine treatment, and the European Parliament has banned the use of methyl bromide within the European Union (EU) from March 18, 2010. (3)
“Methyl bromide due to its damage of the ozone layer has a much greater effect on climate change than carbon dioxide, yet ERMA is hiding behind the fact that man made ozone hole damage appears to be lessening. So now New Zealand is blatantly taking advantage of everyone else fixing the problem.”
“With ERMA’s chemical cowboy approach, New Zealand is once again demeaning its clean green 100% Pure reputation.”
Soil & Health has been involved with several ERMA reassessments and other hearings, and believes the ERMA submission process now open to the public until 18 December, is unlikely to make significant changes to the recommendations.
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that will not include release to air of dangerous ozone depleting fumigants.
References
(1) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/publications/pdfs/Methyl%20Bromide%20Reassessment%20Application.pdf
(2) Extract from ERMA’s Methyl Bromide Reassessment Application
1. The Agency proposes the adoption of the following tolerable exposure limits (TELs):
TEL(chronic)
TEL(acute)24 hour average
TEL (acute)1 hour
0.005 mg/m3
1.3 mg/m3
3.9 mg/m3
1.3 ppb
333 ppb
1000 ppb
0.0013 ppm
0.333 ppm
1 ppm
2. The Agency proposes that the following minimum buffer zones (the downwind distance between the ventilation release location and any non-occupational bystander) be observed when ventilation occurs:
Situation
Buffer zone
Ship‘s hold (greater than 1000 kg methyl bromide used)
100m
Ship‘s hold (less than 1000 kg)
50m
Logs/timber under covers outdoors and indoors (without recapture technology)
50m
Shipping containers
25m
Note 1: Non-occupational bystanders include not just those persons living in nearby residential properties but also those who may be temporarily present in a location, for example, walking on footpaths.
(3) European Union
B1.2.1 At its meeting on March 25, 2009, the European Parliament banned the use of methyl bromide within the European Union (EU) from March 18, 2010. This ban is significantly sooner than the 2015 phase-out originally proposed by the European Commission and supported by EU governments.
B1.2.2 The ban covers the use of methyl bromide as a pesticide, as well as its use for QPS purposes prior to transport. This ban includes the gassing of containers to control vermin. The only remaining exceptions to the ban will be the use of methyl bromide for analytical use in laboratories and for its use in emergencies, such as where a large-scale epidemic occurs (methyl bromide used for emergencies may be used for a period not exceeding 120 days and up to a quantity not exceeding 20 metric tonnes).
B1.2.3 The calculated level of methyl bromide which may be used in the period from 1 January 2010 to 18 March 2010 in the EU is not to exceed 45 (ODP) tonnes. Until 18 March 2010 methyl bromide may be placed on the market and used for QPS purposes for treatment of goods for export, under the condition that at least 80 % of methyl bromide released from the consignment is recovered.
Food Safety Minister Needs To Question GE Food Safety and Labelling.
/in GM, Media Releases, Organic CommunityFood Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson needs to ensure a comprehensive review of the labelling of genetically engineered (GE) food ingredients and GE food safety in New Zealand, now that 40 different GE food applications have been approved for use in New Zealand, including foods derived from 61 GE plant lines (1), according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand. Soil & Health says the latest approvals (2) have gone through despite an increase in evidence of the health risks from GE food.
GE plant lines approved include canola, corn, potato, cotton, soy bean, lucerne (alfalfa), sugarbeet, and rice. Further GE corn, cotton and soybean applications are being processed. Fourteen approved microbial-based food processing aids have also been approved with another being considered.
The Food Safety Minister’s meeting in Adelaide last Friday with the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (Ministerial Council) (3) ended with a joint communiqué (4) that included, “agreeing in principle to commission an independent, comprehensive review of food labelling law and policy.” However Soil & Health is concerned that the “independence” is unlikely to be more than a sham, and points to repeated GE food safety concerns by expert independent scientific researchers being consistently overridden.”
“Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), which takes direction from the Ministerial Council, has never yet turned down an application for the introduction of a genetically engineered food line, and its past so-called independent advice has invariably used research supplied by the mega food industry applicants,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“The ‘independent panel’ to undertake the Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy will be appointed by the Ministerial Council, and if it is anything like last year’s New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s (NZFSA) so-called independent review of some of its decisions, it will be a rubber stamp for whatever convenient business focused direction the Ministerial Council wants.”
“The NZFSA review including A1-A2 milk, artificial sweetener aspartame and Campylobacter, lacked the independence required. In a fox-in-charge-of-the-henhouse scenario, the NZFSA, which was being criticised for its decisions, decided on a review, drafted the terms of reference, and then chose its own reviewer. There were no surprises in the review’s findings.”
“This exercise, as in the NZFSA review, is unlikely to be anything more than a whitewash of FSANZ practices and a Trojan horse for even more harmonisation with international food standards regulator Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex). New Zealanders will lose even more sovereignty and control of their food supply and its safety.”
“However Soil & Health and New Zealand consumers will be blissed out if Kate Wilkinson gets in now and reviews just how many of the numerous GE food ingredients are not identified on the supermarket shelves. While she is putting that right, she should also get Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling (MCoOL) underway,” said Mr Browning. “The Minister doesn’t need the Aussies for either of those, the Aussies have MCoOL already, and any of the Minister’s staff can show what a joke GE food labelling (5) is in NZ. When did NZFSA last check on compliance of the weak rules?”
“NZFSA’s own broad based Consumer Forum voted unanimously for MCoOL, yet NZFSA continues to advise government against it, and like FSANZ advises that GE foods are safe.”
“The Indian government has just overridden its GE crop regulator and put on hold the permission for GE aubergine there, because of protest and scientific criticism. One such scientist who assessed the GE food’s applicant Monsanto-Mahyco’s molecular transformation methods, New Zealand’s Professor Jack Heinemann from the University of Canterbury, was quoted saying, “I have never seen less professionalism in the presentation and quality assurance of molecular data than in this study,”
Heinemann, who is genuinely independent, has also questioned FSANZ decisions affecting New Zealanders exposure to GE foods but again the applicant’s own substandard science was preferred by FSANZ. (6)
“Independent animal GE food feeding studies including foods approved for New Zealand are increasingly showing food safety risks, yet FSANZ has yet to turn down an application. Studies include showing multi generational infant mortalities and disorders of the reproductive, immune and blood clotting systems. This can include increased cases of pre-cancerous growths. (7,8,9)
“While buying organic food avoids exposure to GE food components, Soil & Health points out the broad consumer preference to not be eating GE foods, yet current GE labelling requirements are both weak and under-enforced,” said Mr Browning.
“Soil & Health maxim, Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, is a lead to a sustainable environment, safe and nutritious food, and a healthy nation. Consumers should at least have the choice and the Minister can ensure they do.”
REFERENCES
(1) http://www.foodstandards.govt.nz/standardsdevelopment/standardsworkplan.cfm
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/gmfoods/gmcurrentapplication1030.cfm
(2) http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/standardsdevelopment/notificationcirculars/index.cfm
· Application A614 – Food derived from Glyphosate-tolerant Cotton Line GHB614
· Application A615 – Food derived from Insect-protected Cotton Line COT67B
(3) Membership of the Ministerial Council comprises Health Ministers from New Zealand most Australian States and Territories, the Australian Government, as well as other Ministers from related portfolios (Primary Industries, Consumer Affairs etc) where these have been nominated by their jurisdictions. All jurisdictions, except New Zealand, have nominated a Lead Minister for voting purposes. New Zealand has nominated their Minister for Food Safety as Lead Minister for voting purposes. It appears to be a one New Zealand Minister to twelve Australian ratio.
(4) http://www.alga.asn.au/newsroom/communiques/03.anzfrmc/20081024.php Comprehensive Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy. The meeting agreed in principle to commission an independent, comprehensive review of food labelling law and policy. The review will be undertaken by an independent expert panel. The expert panel will comprise prominent individuals appointed by the Ministerial Council who collectively possess knowledge and expertise in the fields of public health, regulatory, economics/public policy, law and consumer behaviour and business. The review is to be chaired by an independent public policy expert.
(5) http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/gm-ge/gmfoods.htm
Extracts from New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s Frequently Asked Questions further below.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/organisms/regulation/food-labelling.html
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Standard_1_5_2_GM_v112……..pdf
(6) MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from “sites.google.com” claiming to be MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from “sites.google.com” claiming to be http://sites.google.com/site/therightbiotechnology/free-chapter-downloads
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Response to INBI submission on A549 DAR FINAL
(7) Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, by Jeffrey M. Smith http://permaculture.org.au/2009/05/20/doctors-warn-avoid-genetically-modified-food/ Full text with references copied further below.
(8) GM food can cause cancer
Down to Earth, October 31 2009
http://downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20091031&filename=inv&sec_id=14&sid=1
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11612-qgm-food-can-cause-cancerq-seralini
French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini unmasked the dangers of genetically modified brinjal (aubergine), intended for commercial production in India. He shared with Savvy Soumya Misra his findings on Bt brinjal and Roundup Ready soybean(9) GE Soy Rat Feeding Study
In the group GM-soy there was a high level of pup mortality in the firstgeneration, underdevelopment of some pups, and a total absence of a second generation. These effects were not observed in the other groups. It is concluded that a diet incorporating the GM soy line 40.3.2 (approved for use in NZ) can have a negative influence on the fertility, health and posterity of rats.
The full Russian version of the paper is at:
http://www.science-education.ru/download/2009/05/2009_05_02.pdf
Full Text References (5,7)
(5) Extracts from New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s Frequently Asked Questions;
Genetically Modified Foods: Labelling and Safety
What is Genetically Modified (GM) food?
GM food is a food or ingredient that is produced from a genetically modified organism and is different from its conventional counterpart.
Genetic modification (GM) or genetic engineering (GE), is a process for altering specific genes of a living organism to change its characteristics.
Is there GM food in New Zealand?
Currently in New Zealand:
o No GM crops are grown commercially.
o No GM fruit, vegetables or meat are sold.
o Processed foods can contain GM ingredients but must be labelled accordingly.
What GM food can be sold in New Zealand?
GM ingredients can only be sold in New Zealand if Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) has assessed them for safety and they have been approved by the FSANZ Board and cleared by all Australian and New Zealand ministers responsible for food.
GM ingredients that are approved are derived from GM crops such as corn, canola, soybean and sugarbeet. Foods containing approved GM ingredients must then be labelled accordingly.
How do people know if what they are buying contains GM material?
Since 7 December 2002, accurate labelling is required for foods containing GM DNA or protein, or having altered characteristics (e.g., soybeans with high oleic acid content).
What does a label look like?
Where a food has to be labelled as GM, the information will usually be in the ingredients list. For example a label for bread containing a GM ingredient could look like this:
Ingredients: wheat flour, yeast, soy flour (genetically modified), water, vegetable oil, sugar, salt, emulsifiers (471, 472E), preservative (282), enzyme (amylase). If you want to find out more about a product, you can contact the manufacturer directly, often through a toll-free number on the label.
What about ‘GM-Free’ labelling?
Negative content labelling such as ‘GM-free’ labelling is not addressed as part of the labelling standard.
What foods must be labelled?
The labelling requirement covers all packaged and bulk foods. The law says:
Food that contains genetically modified DNA or protein must be labelled. This includes any food, food ingredient, food additive, food-processing aid or flavouring that contains modified DNA or protein. Flavourings that make up less than 0.1% of a food are exempt from this requirement.
Food that has altered characteristics as a result of genetic modification must be labelled, even if no GM material is present in the finished product. For example, if soyabeans are genetically modified to produce oil that is higher in oleic acid, that oil must be labelled. Does this cover all GM ingredients all the time?
If an ingredient unintentionally contains GM material that is less than 1% of that ingredient then it does not need to be labelled. Food businesses are required to take all reasonable steps to avoid this happening. Flavourings that make up less than 0.1% of a food are also exempt from this requirement.
Why do we allow a tolerance before labelling is required?
There is an allowance for unintentional presence of GM content up to 1% before a ingredient must be labelled. This recognises that, even with the best of intentions, occasionally some cross-contamination of different foods is possible. For example, intermixing may arise from use of the same transport containers or vehicles for GM and non-GM foods or ingredients.
Does GM labelling apply to takeaways and food prepared in restaurants?
The GM labelling requirement applies to all packaged and bulk foods, but does not apply to food prepared in restaurants, cafes and takeaways. This is the same as most other food labelling requirements. If concerned, you can ask whether it contains any GM ingredients before you choose to buy it.
(7) Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food By Jeffrey M. Smith
Full text with references follows;
On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”
More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”
Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.
Pregnant women and babies at great risk
Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[2]
The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks – compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]
When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]
Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9]
In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.
Food designed to produce toxin
GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt – produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis – has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.
The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.
Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[11],[12]
The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, Sunday India reported “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[14]
GMOs provoke immune reactions
AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation” – all on the rise in the US.
According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”[15] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16] A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[17]
GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[18] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[19] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[20] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.
Animals dying in large numbers
In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[21] In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.
In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[22]
Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23]
In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks.[24] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25]
Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us
The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.
When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.
Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied
Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[27] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.
Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases
AAEM states “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[28]
Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[29]
Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.
This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood – but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.
If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[30]
To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”
Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.
If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.
International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t have the data to show that their products are safe.
www.ResponsibleTechnology.org,
info@responsibletechnology.org
——————————————————————————–
[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace Canada, October 25, 2002.
[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[5] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[6] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
[7] Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
[8] Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008
[9] Jerry Rosman, personal communication, 2006
[10] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea,” Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),” Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.
[11] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).
[12] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.
[13] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.
[14] Sunday India, October, 26, 2008
[15] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John
[16] John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstu…
[17] Alberto Finamore, et al, “Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice,” J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533–11539, November 14, 2008
[18] See L Zolla, et al, “Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications,” J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7); and Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.
[19] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005
[20] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
[21] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
[22] Personal communication and visit, January 2009.
[23] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007
[24] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.
[25] Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,” Le Monde, 14 December 2004; referencing, John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
[26] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from “outbind:” claiming to be [27] See memos at www.biointegrity.org
[28] José Domingo, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants : A Review of the Published Literature,” Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2007, vol. 47, no8, pp. 721-733
[29] Angela Hall, “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMOs”, The Leader-Post (Canada), 26 April 2005.
[30] Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, “Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend,” Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25
Port Marlboroughs Independent Fumigation Monitoring A Sham
/in Health, Media Releases, Organic CommunityPort Marlborough’s sole owner, the Marlborough District Council, should take a leaf out of Taupo District Council’s book and ban aerial 1080 drops, but also immediately ban the release to air of tonnes of methyl bromide gas, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.
“This weekend’s release of several tonnes of the neurotoxic methyl bromide gas from log fumigation into the atmosphere at Shakespeare Bay, Picton (photo 6419), was typical of the cavalier attitude to the community and environment by the Council, Port Marlborough, fumigation company Genera, log exporter Zindia, and also the so called independent monitoring company SKM,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“A series of breaches of best practice for fumigations, and community and environmental care included;
Wind conditions at times beyond Port Marlborough’s own limits.
The so-called ‘independent’ monitoring company employing fumigation company, Genera, staff.
A launch coming along side and down wind as gas was being vented from one of the log ship Super Challenger’s holds. (photo 6432, 6446)
When the wind changed, gas, from on shore log stacks under previously billowing tarpaulins (photo 6454), was released in the direction of the interislander ferry terminal.
No one in the vicinity of the fumigation appeared to be wearing safety masks.” (photo 6452)
“To top it off, sawn timber that would normally have been fumigated under strict conditions in Nelson, where the gas would have been recaptured, was being fumigated near Picton with all the gas being released into the surrounding air,” said Mr Browning, who spent several hours observing the facility on Saturday.
“Why should the Picton community put up with anything less than the best practice conditions imposed by the Environment Court in Nelson?”
“The monitoring is a farce, as air modelling to determine where the invisible and odourless methyl bromide gas will move, has not been done for Picton, and the siting of monitors around the fence line has little relevance to likely air flows of the fumigant.”
“Taupo District Council (Note 1) made good use last week of Section 10(b) of the Local Government Act (Note 2),
To enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities
To promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities, now and for the future,
in immediately banning aerial drops of 1080. That example should be used by the Marlborough District Council in response to the wide level of community opposition to both 1080 and methyl bromide being used recklessly in the environment.”
The fumigation was on the back of significant public disquiet, and a protest (photo 6239) at the last Marlborough District Council meeting, where the Council which receives significant income from Port activities, decided to allow fumigations to continue for at least a year; until the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has completed a reassessment of the fumigant.
“Taupo District Council properly used its powers, for the immediate ban on aerial drops of 1080 poison in that region, regardless of ERMA’s soft 2007 1080 reassessment decision. Marlborough District Council can do the same,” said Mr Browning.
‘Until air modelling and then recapture of the gas following fumigation occurs, large scale methyl bromide fumigation must stop.”
Soil & Health has a motto of Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, and has a vision of an Organic 2020 that does not include the use of neurotoxic, ozone depleting fumigants or the aerial discharge of toxins such as 1080.
NOTE: (1,2) below.
Photographs are available in larger format.
————–
(1) The Taupo District Council resolution follows:
Resolution
That the Taupo District Council, in accordance with the Section 10b of the Local Government Act 2002, advocate with central government and appropriate agencies, viz:
a. To develop a sustainable alternative possum eradication and trapping programme.
b. For the abolition of all aerial dropping of 1080 poison forthwith.
(2) Extracts from localcouncils.govt.nz
http://www.localcouncils.govt.nz/LGIP.nsf/wpg_url/About-Local-Government…
What do our Councils do?
A quick look at the Local Government Act 2002 shows the expectations of councils, briefly–
The purpose of local government is –
To enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities
To promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities, now and for the future. (Local Government Act 2002, section 10 (b)).
The role of local authorities is to lead and represent their communities. They must engage with their communities and encourage community participation in decision-making, while considering the needs of people currently living in communities and those who will live there in the future.
The Local Government Act 2002, section 12(2), gives councils wide scope to do anything within the context of the purpose of local government.
Marlborough Needs To Clean Up Its Air
/in Health, Media Releases, Organic CommunityThe Marlborough District Council and its subsidiary company Port Marlborough need to commit to a ban on the release to air of methyl bromide log fumigants, at least until the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has completed its reassessment of the neurotoxic gas next year, according to the Soil & Health Association.
The Marlborough District Council was due to decide today on the recommendation of its Environmental Policy Committee that any decision relating to methyl bromide log fumigation at Port Marlborough should wait until after the ERMA reassessment. Soil & Health believes that is the wrong way around and lacks responsibility and the correct precautionary approach.
Methyl bromide fumigations at Port Marlborough had stopped in September 2007 following significant publicity but began again earlier this year.
“The Marlborough Mayor and Councillors all know that Nelson has been through a rigorous Environment Court process for its Port fumigation activities, and now has stringent rules that offer the port workers, and the Nelson people and environment, a reasonable level of protection,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Log fumigation releasing several tonnes of the very dangerous gas at each log shipment, is no longer possible in Nelson. Precaution and common sense say that the same risks exist in Picton and Shakespeare Bay, and until gas recapture technology as is being developed in Nelson can occur in Marlborough, log fumigations must stop.”
Today’s Picton and Blenheim protest against methyl bromide log fumigation, organised by the Guardians of the Sounds group, is supported by Soil & Health who initiated public response to the methyl bromide issue in both Picton and Wellington.
“Both Wellington and Picton ports have had fumigation tarpaulins blown off log stacks during high winds, releasing hundreds of kilograms of toxic and ozone depleting gas unexpectedly,” said Mr Browning.
Wellington’s Regional Council owned CentrePort, has been reported to be now fumigating logs only in the ships hold, to better able controlled release of the toxic gas. However Mr Browning points out that even then, the Port companies have no real idea where the gas will go, as they have not computer modelled the air flow.
‘Until air modelling and then recapture of the gas following fumigation occurs, large scale methyl bromide fumigation must stop.”
“Marlborough councillors, nearly all of whom in the 2007 local body election campaign opposed the Picton fumigations, know that Nelson has led the way, but for short term economic imperatives seem now prepared to risk community and environmental health.”
“With Europe effectively banning methyl bromide fumigant release to air early next year, maybe Marlborough’s short term economic outlook may get a bite in its clean green sauvignon blanc reputation, when word of high spray drift and ozone depleting fumigations get to those discerning markets.”
“Marlborough, the Picton community and the ozone layer deserve better now. Soil & Health hopes the Council will listen to its community and stop the gas.”
Soil & Health has a motto of Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, and has a vision of an Organic 2020 that does not include the use of neurotoxic, ozone depleting fumigants.
US Commentator Calls New Zealand GE Trees Irresponsible
/in GE, Media Releases, Organic CommunityThe Soil & Health Association is calling for a ban on New Zealand exports of genetically engineered (GE) organisms.
The intended growing in the United States of 260,000 GE eucalyptus trees from New Zealand has been described as “Irresponsible, Dangerous, and Stupid,” by Jim Hightower, a U.S. national commentator who broadcasts daily radio commentaries carried by more than 150 commercial and public stations, as well as on the web. He was also twice elected Texas Agriculture Commissioner. (1,2,3)
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which initially recommended approval of the large GE tree plantings is currently considering the submissions to the forestry biotech company ArborGen’s application.
“This has happened with practically no media coverage or public participation. It is happening solely because a handful of global speculators hope to profit by making ethanol from cellulose-enhanced eucalyptus – never mind that their self-aggrandizement would put America’s native forests in danger of irreversible contamination by these destructive, invasive Frankentrees,” said Hightower.
“It is a double standard to be exporting very risky products, such as GE eucalyptus trees, most of which are intended to be allowed to flower and set seed. We all know the same trees would be unacceptable planted in New Zealand,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“The double standard is being recognised overseas and further GE exports from New Zealand will continue to erode our clean green 100% Pure NZ brand. Those opposed to the GE trees are the very consumers identified as the best value international market for New Zealand produce over the next two decades. They want wellness, GE free, sustainably produced, animal friendly, and fair traded products.”
Nearly 17,500 public comments, including some from New Zealand, were sent to the USDA opposing its recommendation for approval of ArborGen’s proposal. The USDA received only 39 favourable comments. If allowed, the plantings would take place on 330 acres of land across seven states in the Southern U.S., to supposedly trial future biofuel production. Soil & Health submitted against the USDA recommendation (4).
“The irony is that eucalypts, release soil carbon through their nutrient uptake, losing more carbon from the soil than they take from the atmosphere, and as such negate much of the point of biofuels. Not only will the GE trees be very risky as an invasive fire promoting GE weed, but they will also contribute to the human component of climate change,” said Mr Browning.
The 260,000 GE eucalypts were grown in New Zealand by Horizon 2, which is based in ArborGen’s Australasian headquarters near Te Teko in the Bay of Plenty. Rubicon, effectively old New Zealand company Fletcher Forests, is in turn a third of ArborGen. (7)
“The Rubicon – ArborGen – Horizon 2 GE tree exports lower New Zealand’s reputation by being both carbon depleters and GE.”
The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has also granted Pacificvet Ltd of Christchurch, approval for importing for future exporting, a live GE E. coli vaccine (Poulvac® E. coli) used in the immunisation of poultry against colibacillosis. The vaccine, not permitted for use in New Zealand, is intended to be exported to South Pacific countries which will not be under ERMA controls. (5,6)
Specific consent from the Minister for the Environment is required however, if the export is for the non-contained use of the GE organism (GMO) in the country of import, and it appears import for export consent holder Pacificvet Ltd of Christchurch is now wanting to export the vaccine.
“This is a rather strange situation of New Zealand being the warehouse for GE goods not permitted for use in New Zealand, but for use by some of our less cautious neighbours,” said Mr Browning.
“Like most New Zealanders, Soil & Health is proud that there is no effective release of GE organisms in New Zealand, and to maximize this country’s GE free advantage, wants a ban on the export of GE material.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 free of genetically engineered organisms.
Notes
(1) http://jimhightower.com/node/6900 (Text also below)
(2) Audio, http://jimhightower.com/sites/jimhightower.civicactions.net/files/28_17_rnc.mp3
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hightower
(4) Soil & Health’s previous media release and references further below Jim Hightower text.
(5) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/appfiles/execsumm/pdf/GMC08001-003.pdf
(6) http://www.pacificvet.co.nz/index2.html
(7) Click the links below for photographs of the Horizon 2 facility – ArborGen Australasian Head Office at 1943 SH39 Te Teko Bay of Plenty (07) 3229030 http://by107w.bay107.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=0&messag…|0|8CBFA35594C4CF0|, http://by107w.bay107.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=1&messag…|0|8CBFA35594C4CF0|, http://by107w.bay107.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=2&messag…|0|8CBFA35594C4CF0|, http://by107w.bay107.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=3&messag…|0|8CBFA35594C4CF0|
(1 Text) The Invasion of Genetically-Engineered Eucalyptus
Jim Hightower jimhightower.com, August 6 2009
Here’s a great idea: Let’s bring into our country a genetically-engineered, non-native tree that is known to be wildly invasive, explosively flammable, and insatiably thirsty for ground water. Then let’s clone thousands of these living firecrackers and plant them in forested regions across seven Southern states, allowing them to grow, flower, produce seeds, and spread into native environments.
Yes, this would be irresponsible, dangerous, and stupid – but apparently “Irresponsible, Dangerous, and Stupid” is the unofficial slogan of the U.S. Department Agriculture. In May, with little consideration of the devastating consequences for our native environment, USDA cavalierly rubberstamped a proposal by a profiteering corporation named ArborGen to do all of the above.
Substantially owned by International Paper, ArborGen shipped tissue from Brazilian eucalyptus trees to its New Zealand laboratories, where it was genetically altered to have more cellulose. New Zealand, however, outlaws plantings of genetically-engineered crops, so ArborGen sought out a more corporate-compliant country: Ours. The engineered eucalyptus was waved right into the good ol’ USA to be cloned, and it’s now awaiting final approval for outdoor release in our land.
This has happened with practically no media coverage or public participation. It is happening solely because a handful of global speculators hope to profit by making ethanol from cellulose-enhanced eucalyptus – never mind that their self-aggrandizement would put America’s native forests in danger of irreversible contamination by these destructive, invasive Frankentrees.
Luckily, several scrappy grassroots groups have mobilized to bring common sense and public pressure to bear on USDA. For updates and action items, visit www.nogetrees.org
Pesticide residues in food shows need for organics
/in GE, GM, Health, Media ReleasesPesticide residues in the New Zealand diet are being downplayed by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA), according to two advocacy groups. The comments of the Soil & Health Association of NZ and of Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand (PAN) follow analysis of two food study results released by the NZFSA.
“The method of reporting of pesticide residues detected in the Total Diet Study (TDS) (1) hides the fact that most composite regional food samples contained pesticide residues, with several having significant multiple residues. It is time for food without pesticide residues – this means organics,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Analysis of the Food Residue Surveillance Programme (2) results for celery and spinach, showed 100% of the celery samples, and 75% of the spinach samples contained pesticide residues, with many samples containing multiple residues.”
“The celery and spinach were mostly contaminated with chlorothalinol (Bravo) or dithiocarbomates respectively, and sometimes with both. Other toxic pesticides were also found, this showing the need for to boost organic agriculture.”
“Of the celery samples, one had 6 different pesticide residues, one had 3 and three had 2. Fourteen spinach samples had at least 2 pesticide residues. These chemical cocktails are increasingly being shown to be dangerous.”
“The Total Diet Survey, far from giving our produce a clean bill of health has highlighted two persistent problems” said Dr Meriel Watts of Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand.
“Tucked away at the back of the document are tables showing that almost all products made with grains such as wheat contains residues of the neurotoxic organophosphate insecticide pirimphos-methyl; and the majority of fruit and vegetables contain dithiocarbmate insecticides.”
“Pirimphos-methyl is used to fumigate grain silos, and there is no chance of removing it from the grain. Organic grain is not treated with this chemical”
“The dithiocarbamate insecticides which turned up in 16 out of 26 of the fruit and vegetables tested, is a perennial problem.”
“It has become very clear that New Zealand simply has to stop using these particular pesticides if we are very going to stop the residue problem,” said Dr Watts.
Dithiocarbamate fungicides and chlorothalonil are on the Pesticide Action Network International list of Highly Hazardous Pesticides for global phase out.
Dithiocarbomate fungicides (eg mancozeb, maneb, thiram) are severe central nervous system toxicant, carcinogen, and endocrine disruptors; they also cause sterility and birth defects, also affecting liver, kidney and respiratory and cardiac, systems. Chlorothalonil is carcinogenic, mutagenic and an environmental toxin and it is thought responsible for aggravating the health effects of other pesticides (3).
A study of cancer patients by Massey University’s Centre for Public Health Research (4) found an elevated leukaemia risk among horticulture workers, with risks to market gardeners and nursery growers, especially women, being higher than those to the general public.
In a separate study released by US government health staff in a recent issue of the American Society of Hematology journal, Blood, (5,6) it was found that exposure to certain pesticides, including dieldrin and chlorothalonil (Bravo) increased the risks 5.6 fold and 2.4 fold respectively, of a blood disorder that can lead to multiple myeloma.
“Considering that dieldrin was banned in agriculture in New Zealand in 1968, and from other uses in 1989, the commonly used fungicide Bravo (chlorothalonil) as found in most non-organic celery, may be a significant culprit in New Zealand cancers. Soil & Health urgently wants studies to focus on Bravo,” said Mr Browning.
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020.
————–
Notes:
(1) http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2009/2009-08-17-residues-still-low-in-nz-food-study-shows.htm
(2) http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2009/2009-06-24-crop-tests-produce-mixed-results.htm
(3) Lodovici, M. et al. 1994. Effect of a mixture of 15 commonly used pesticides on DNA levels of 8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine and xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes in rat liver. /J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. Oncol./13(3):163-168. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3483984 Lodovici, M. et al, 1997, Oxidative liver DNA damage in rats treated with pesticide mixtures, /Toxicology/, Volume 117, Issue 1, 14 February 1997, Pages 55-60 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9020199. These results indicate that the toxicity of low doses of pesticide mixtures present in food might be further reduced by eliminating diphenylamine and chlorothalonil.
(4) http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-us/news/article.cfm?mnarticle=female-farm-workers-at-highest-risk-of-leukaemia-15-06-2009
(5) http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/short/113/25/6386
(6) http://www.checkorphan.org/news/individuals_who_apply_pesticides_are_found_have_double_risk_blood_disorder
Proposed Amendment to the New Zealand Folic Acid Standard
/in Food, Health, Media Releases, Organic CommunityThe Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc remains supportive of the position of the existing Standard to exempt organic bread from mandatory fortification with folic acid.
Soil & Health remains opposed to the mandatory fortification of all bread, but is pleased that the integrity of organics was supported by then Food Safety Minister Annette King, the Commerce Commission and FSANZ. The exemption of organic bread allows a measure of choice for all consumers and generally has the advantage of having higher base levels of natural folate than many other types of bread, due to the ingredients being less processed.
Soil & Health received significant communication of support from members and also several organic bakers to the news of the organic exemption. Soil & Health interprets the current Standard as protecting the integrity of organics, a position it expressed in consultation and submissions to FSANZ and the Food Safety Minister.
Soil & Health agrees with the substance of the New Zealand Commerce Commission (NZCC) and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) findings in relation to consumer expectations of foods labelled ‘organic’ or ‘certified organic’, as expressed in the earlier Issues Paper.
Soil & Health has some degree of concern that foods labelled ‘natural’ were not exempt, however unless those foods are reasonably certain to be pesticide and additive residue free, as expected with organic foods, the ‘natural’ claim may be spurious.
Foods labelled ‘natural’, are without the benefit of standards and certification processes as in the organic sector, however should a food supplier be able to provide evidence of the ‘naturalness’ of its product, for example wild harvested and organic ingredients with no synthetic additives, Soil & Health would expect that it should also be exempt.
Soil & Health supports increased education of the community and in particular women of childbearing age, of the function of folate in NTD prevention, and Soil & Health accepted it has a role with its membership of communicating that function, the dietary sources and options available.
Of the suggested options
* 5.1 Status Quo
* 5.2 Amendment to Commencement date (preferred option)
* 5.3 Revocation of the New Zealand Folic Acid Standard
Soil & Health prefers option 3 (5.3), Revocation of the NZ Folic Acid Standard.
Revocation of the Standard in conjunction with a strong public health educative program that not only targets women of child bearing age, but educates the public in general to the benefits of folate and a healthy full diet.
Noting that there are significant increases in obesity and other symptoms of poor dietary choice, there is an opportunity to address folate intake as part of a more comprehensive nutritional campaign that will have benefits far in excess of the most optimistic outcomes of mass medication, and without the possible risks associated with synthetic folic acid or other mandatory supplements.
Federated Farmers Bees Man Ambushing Beekeepers GE Protection
/in GE, Media Releases, Organic CommunityFederated Farmers GE statements show they are confused about what clean and green means, and appear to be influenced by the vested interests of one of their provincial presidents, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.
Federated Farmers genetic modification (GE), biosecurity, and bees spokesperson John Hartnell has been hard hitting in the media against Northland Councils seeking public feedback to proposals to set policy protecting non GE growers and the community from the costs of GE contamination.
“It would seem that John Hartnell may be overly influenced by New Zealand’s main lobbyist for GE, Dr William Rolleston, a biotechnology entrepreneur and Chair of the Life Science Network, but now also Federated Farmers President of South Canterbury province,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“The position Hartnell is taking, flies in the face of one of his own ventures, that of exporting organic honey. You can’t have organic or GE free honey if GE crops or trees are in the same region, but like a bee that has lost its way, Hartnell seems to be confused about what direction he should be taking.”
“The position that Northland Councils are exploring is actually about ensuring that honey producers, horticulturalists and farmers are not disadvantaged should GE be allowed in the New Zealand environment.”
“However Hartnell who should be looking out for New Zealand beekeepers and biosecurity appears to be trying to ambush protections for New Zealand beekeepers and primary producers, by criticizing the small spending by the Councils on a poll to test community acceptance of their plans,” said Mr Browning.
“When GE pollen was released by Plant & Food Research at its GE Brassica field trial at Lincoln near Hartnell’s home, did he join Soil & Health demanding that MAF-Biosecurity test nearby bee hives or brassica seed for contamination? No!”
“Good biosecurity practice in protecting New Zealand’s clean green brand would be testing for contamination to remove doubt. Federated Farmers biosecurity emphasis needs to be at home as well as at the border.”
“Hartnell’s honey would not be able to be marketed as clean green, 100% Pure New Zealand if GE contamination was found, but he doesn’t want decent protection to be installed for his fellow industry colleagues either. What’s up? Something’s murky in the Feds and it smells like GE.”
“Federated Farmers Dairy vice-chairperson, Willy Leferink chose to mention the benefit of GMO free grass being part of New Zealand’s market advantage recently, and Federated Farmers Grains Council certainly knew their market risks when maize for Japan was contaminated with GM soy, but somethings up. Hartnell’s here and he doesn’t seem to want to risk Northland Councils putting in protections for non-GE producers,” said Mr Browning.
“It is time Federated Farmers joined in the vision of a clean green Aotearoa New Zealand, recognised the economic advantages of the brand, and protected the real interests of its members.”
Current Government legislation does not give full protection to those disadvantaged should GE contamination occur. Although the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification had 49 recommendations as a framework to its outcome of “to proceed with caution”, only 20 recommendations have been fully implemented and significant gaps remain around environmental testing and liability.
The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) and MAF-Biosecurity New Zealand have allowed GE field trials all to fail consent conditions, including potentially GE pollination events, without significant penalty.
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that includes a GE Free Aotearoa New Zealand.
Life Sciences Confused About GE Risk
/in GE, Media Releases, Organic CommunityThe biotech lobby group, Life Sciences appears confused about the birds and the bees, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.
Quoted in today’s Christchurch Press newspaper, Life Sciences chairman William Rolleston had said, “The recent breaches by Plant and Food Research at Lincoln in a GM-brassica trial were not as bad as some might think. You have to ask yourself, `what risk was actually posed by those plants?’”
“However genetically engineered cauliflowers, broccoli and kale, all appear to have flowered at Plant & Food Research’s Lincoln facility last year, and yet no tests have been carried out to check on pollen spread,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Does Life Science’s not understand bees and pollen and fertilisation?”
“MAF-Biosecurity New Zealand have covered their backsides for their poor monitoring of the GE field trial by not testing for GE contamination, and now New Zealand’s biggest GE promoter, Life Sciences, is doubting any risk. The fact that the scientist involved allowed rows of GE cauliflowers to start flowering as early as April 2008, and I discovered a pollinated flowering GE kale in December 2008, suggests high risk and insect pollination.”
In 2006 the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) approved a trial – GMF 06001- to genetically modify four species of Brassica –cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli and kale with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insecticidal genes. Planting commenced in late 2007 ahead of the 2008 High Court hearing of the appeal by GE Free NZ and the organic sector against the approval …
MAF-Biosecurity New Zealand (MAF-BNZ) is required by law to monitor GE field trials approved by ERMA, but failed to stop the Plant & Food GE brassicas from flowering. The scientist’s midyear report stated that broccoli had commenced bolting in January 2008 and were removed ahead of flowering. However her own photographs suggested flowers, and her April 2008 photographs had fully bolted cauliflowers.
Honey and brassica seed from a nearby organic property have been stored for testing and Soil & Health has been in discussions with Plant & Food regarding testing for the GE material used by the Crown Research Institute during the breach.
“Soil & Health intend testing the material because our own government regulators have failed even the most basic consideration of neighbouring farmers and growers,” said Mr Browning.
“Organic certification can be lost through GE contamination and if there is GE contamination in the Lincoln area, the sooner it is cleaned up the better.”
“Brassica’s are some of the most promiscuous plants around, and with little care by regulators ERMA, MAF-Biosecurity, or the experimenter, Plant & Food Research, it appears that the community must step in to test for contamination.”
Rolleston was also quoted, “There had been a lot of talk about “how onerous and unnecessary” regulations around GM research were.”
However Browning says that the breaches prove the need that both strong regulation around controls and monitoring are necessary, including strict liability controls over the experimenters. Consent breaches have occurred at all ERMA approved field trials.
Soil & Health supports strict liability controls to remove all costs of GE contamination from rates and taxpayers.
“With the track record of regulators and experimenters, a ban would be better.”
Soil & Health has a vision of a GE Free and Organic 2020.
Crop and Food confidential Annual Report No 2210, for GMF06001 July 2008http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/no/compliance/2008%20GMF06001%20Annual%20Report.pdf
MAF dodging Plant & Food’s $10million GE liability
/in GE, Media Releases, Organic CommunityThe final response of MAF’s biosecurity and enforcement teams following major breaches of consent by Plant & Food Research (P&F) at its GE brassica (broccoli, cauliflower, cabbages etc.) field trial during 2008, is a massive insult to the more than 930 submitters who opposed the field trial, and shows the corruption of government, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning first alerted Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry – Biosecurity New Zealand (MAF-BNZ) last December to his discovery of the breach. Plant & Food Research had left GE brassica plants to flower in the field, something that was not permitted under the field trial’s consent conditions.
Last Monday a MAF Investigator from MAF Infrastructure and Compliance Enforcement notified Mr Browning that MAF had finalised the matter by way of a formal warning to the Plant and Food Research Field Test Manager, the scientist who had resigned her position as approved containment facility operator following publicity of the breach.
“MAF was in a position to send the strongest possible message to the science community for its sloppy approach to GE field trials. Instead it has just passed them the most lenient next-to-nothing approach possible,” said Soil & Health Spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Soil & Health has yet to receive the ‘comprehensive information summary’, the investigation report, completed by the MAF Investigator. There is also further information relating to the decision-making process that resulted in the warning decision.” However, Soil & Health believes that MAF, who have informally suggested that they were unable to penalise Plant and Food, have conveniently failed to interpret the law. Plant and Food could have been fined at least $10 million, and the scientist $500,000 (1).”
“The ‘slap over the wrist with a wet seed packet’ of a formal warning to the GE field trial’s key scientist, dodges the responsibility of her employer, Plant and Food Research, who continues to experiment with many other GE vegetables and flowers indoors and is holding an approval for a substantial and more risky GE allium (onion family) field trial that has not yet been planted. These GE crops will be allowed to go to flower and set seed in the field”
“With significant cost to those that submitted against the GE brassica and onion applications and who were vindicated in their concerns about pollen release when Soil & Health and GE Free NZ exposed the GE breaches, how is it that P& F are not fined substantially as the HSNO Act allows? All those submitters get it right, Soil & Health and GE Free NZ do the work, and Plant & Food gets a business as usual pass.”
“This smacks of collusion from the top down and begs the question of why MAF-BNZ is the agency responsible for monitoring GE experiments in New Zealand. When they fail that role along with the scientists involved, they are the sole agency responsible for checking the degree of GE contamination resulting from the breach. Deciding the penalty for this breach is also their task and they failed that. Another MAF division is the judge and jury deciding the legal penalty for those responsible and yet did not penalise P&F at all”
“ Who is responsible? The Minister? The CEO? Someone has allowed the three separate arms of MAF to blend a pro-GE business as usual solution, to a blatant example of why New Zealand science should not be proceeding down the GE path.”
“Is it because P&F is a Crown Research Institute (CRI)? Is it because sneaky behind the scenes GE exports from our science institutions are benefiting New Zealand big business in its environmentally unsustainable and blinkered approach to business? Fletcher Challenge’s manifestation Rubicon’s attempt to grow 260,000 GE eucalypt trees, exported after developmental assistance by the laboratories of Arborgen and CRI Scion in New Zealand, through to flowering and seeding in several US states and Brazil, is one of the more reckless examples of GE development yet,” said Mr Browning.
Just a few days ago Prime Minister Key gave $1million dollars to the Queenstown tourisms 100% Pure branded winter festival.
“How about Plant & Food’s $10 million penalty going to clean green 100% Pure organic research and development?”
“Risky and sloppy GE science does not fit with tourism’s 100% Pure brand or the Clean Green brand that sells so much of our primary production and worse still, it lacks a conscience about long term environmental and health effects.”
Every GE field trial approved by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has been in breach of its consent conditions, with two closed down since Soil & Health and GE Free NZ have disclosed serious non-compliances at them. Both Scion and Plant and Food risked pollen release.
MAF-BNZ also failed to monitor the Scion GE pine tree field trial correctly, and then joined with ERMA and Scion into damage control, ignoring evidence supplied by Soil & Health, back dating illegal consent changes, misleading the public about the breaches, with the Minister of the day also joining in.
Photographs and the scientist’s own log have shown how the GE brassica field trial was breaching its ERMA consent conditions with flowering plants, even as GE Free NZ and the organic sector were in the High Court appealing ERMA’s decision allowing the trial. If the decision was made under the RMA, the scientist would not have dared plant until the appeal decision was final.
“Plant and Food not only planted but breached its consent conditions ahead of a final decision.”
“Such gross negligence and arrogance gets the wet seed packet approach and business as usual by MAF. What is ERMA’s report, due out shortly, going to say about the many consents given to P&F? Probably not a lot, when two of ERMA’s own team granted the decision to Crop & Food (now P&F ).”
P&F was formed during the time of the GE brassica field trial by a merger of Crop & Food Research (C&F) and HortResearch, who employed two scientists involved in the ERMA decision to allow the GE brassica field trial. The C&F GE brassica applicants and some decision makers were based at the Lincoln CRI research centre. At the time HortResearch employed some ERMA decision makers and assured the many submitters and public that GE pollen release would not be a problem, because of “the controls that have been designed to ensure that GM brassicas do not produce open flowers in the field test site.”
“Blind faith in the colleagues next door or just fobbing the public off?”
“Science funders need to look at their priorities as well, and Foundation of Research Science and Technology (FORST) should be focused on genuine sustainability as their funding target, but with GE contamination well through that organisation, and now also including then acting Crop & Food CEO at the time of the GE brassica breach, it will be a difficult challenge for funding to focus on genuine sustainability and organic research, unless government shows direction.”
“With such incestuous connection between the regulatory and science fraternities, no wonder the community loses faith. The community may have to look beyond the regulations if they are not seen to genuinely work, or GE pollen can be expected as a routine contamination. Science regulation in New Zealand means little this week.” said Mr Browning.
Currently there are no GE field trials in operation in New Zealand, with Plant and Food being coy about their intentions with the GE onion family field trial approval they hold, and AgResearch’s wide ranging GE animal applications have been stopped following GE Free NZ’s successful appeal to the High Court against ERMA. AgResearch GE experimental cattle are grazing at Ruakura, but are not allowed to be experimented with, due to their relevant consents having expired. Technically with the High Court decision they should now be euthanased within a year (2). However, AgResearch intends reapplying, despite the significant animal welfare concerns by the public and admissions of “a less than 9 percent live birth rate, aborted deformed foetuses, deformed calves, gangrenous udders and ‘animals suffering from respiratory conditions’”.
“There is a very good opportunity for government to say NO TO GE FIELD TRIALS. All have failed in some respects, all are contrary to 100% Pure, Clean Green brand NZ, there ***is none in operation and the public are mostly opposed to them.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 with a motto of Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, and is active in seeking genuinely sustainable solutions for New Zealand production and environment. Plant and Food’s $10 million plus penalty could be a good investment for sustainable value added organic production.
——
NOTES:
(1) Who will carry out enforcement for new organisms?
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) is the primary agency undertaking new organism enforcement activities.
What do enforcement officers do?
Enforcement officers will visit premises from time to time to check that controls on new organisms are being complied with. The frequency of inspections should reflect the risks involved. High risk situations should be checked often, while low risk situations may be visited on a less frequent basis. The Act gives enforcement officers the power to enter premises to collect information and evidence. An enforcement officer can also issue a compliance order requiring a person:
* to cease doing anything that contravenes the Act or is significantly dangerous; or
* to do something to ensure compliance, or to remedy the effects of a breach.
(2) What are the penalties for serious offences (non-compliance) under the HSNO Act?
The penalties for breaching the HSNO Act are fines of up to $500,000 in the case of an individual; and, in the case of a body corporate, the greater of $10 million, or three times the value of any commercial gain from the contravention, or 10 per cent of the turnover of the body corporate and all its interconnected bodies corporate, if the commercial gain cannot be ascertained. In addition, a person could be found to have civil liability for acts or omissions in breach of the Act.
(3) 45A Controls required for certain developments and for all field tests
· (1) This section applies to an approval under section 45—
o (a) to develop a new organism in containment that is a genetically modified organism, to the extent that the development does not take place in a containment structure; or
o (b) to field test a new organism in containment if the new organism is a genetically modified organism.
(2) An approval—
o (a) must include controls to ensure that, after the end of the development or field test, the organism and any heritable material from the organism is removed or destroyed; and
o (b) may include controls to ensure that, after the end of the development or field test and after heritable material is removed or destroyed, some or all of the genetic elements remaining from the organism are removed or destroyed.