Biotech giant Monsanto faced a surprising setback after federal authorities refused to approve a new generation of genetically-engineered crops that could survive an unprecedented use of herbicides.

Monsanto was awarded a big win on Monday by the United States Supreme Court, but another federal ruling made only days earlier brought some comparatively bad news to the biotech giant.

The US Department of Agriculture announced Friday that they’ve ordered additional environmental impact statements (EIS) for herbicide-resistant crops that have been waiting for federal approval. Now Monsanto and the chemical company Dow will have to sit anxiously and await the results of those assessments before they are given the go-ahead to sell genetically-engineer plants that have raised serious environmental issues.

At stake is the future for a variety of corn, soybean and cotton crops that have been genetically-engineered to resist two heavy-duty pesticides, namely 2,4-D and dicamba. Both Monsanto and Dow have been hoping to get the go-ahead to sell these crops, but ordering further testing will set the release date back to perhaps 2015.

A number of farmers and environmentalists have opposed the selling of crops resistant to these chemicals, because the result could likely mean dousing fields with pesticides in unprecedented levels.

“The danger that 2,4-D and dicamba pose is a real threat to crops…nearly every food crop,” Steve Smith, director of agriculture at Red Gold, told Reuters last year.

Dr. Gina Solomon, a board-certified in Occupational and Environmental Medicine and Internal Medicine specialist, wrote of concerns stemming from the use of 2,4-D as a crucial component in an infamous chemical warfare campaign during the Vietnam War. “There’s no reason to continue allowing a toxic Agent Orange-ingredient in the places our children play, our families live and our farmers work. EPA must step up and finally put a stop to it,” she said.

And although the Environmental Protection Agency refused a petition to ban the sale of these chemicals, the USDA has now said they think further investigation is warranted.

Tom Philpott, a reporter for Mother Jones, broke down the significant of last week’s USDA decision to order more testing:

“What’s going on here is that under the National Environmental Policy Act, all federal agencies, including USDA, are required to perform an EIS if there’s a chance that a regulatory decision will affect the human environment. But for years, the USDA did not issue such analyses as part of its process of approving GMO crops, and watchdog groups like the Center for Food Safety have repeatedly and successfully sued the department for failing to do so,” Philpott wrote.

“The immediate effect will be a substantial delay in any final decision on approval,” added Philpott, who called the decision on the part of the Obama administration to delay a possible approval “such a surprise.” Only weeks earlier, the president signed into law an agricultural spending bill that included a provision that provides biotech companies with liability from future lawsuits filed over possible health hazards brought on by unregulated and untested GMO products.

Before that bill was advanced out of Congress, farmers petitioned Washington to warn what that act could accomplish.“The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards,” they wrote. “Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks.”

In a statement delivered to Bloomberg this week, the Center for Food Safety said they saluted the USDA’s decision, but warned that it won’t necessitate an investigation as thorough as they’d like.

“While we welcome this decision, it remains to be seen whether the agency will undertake the required hard-look analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of these crops,” Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the center, wrote in a statement.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, a group that represents makers of biotechnology drugs and crops, said it was “disappointed” by the decision and that the action “sets bad precedent for future consideration of safe and beneficial genetically engineered plant products.”

WHEN: Saturday May 25th, at 11 AM till NOON
WHERE:  Starts at MP Colin Mayes’ office 3105 29 Street, Vernon, BC, walk through downtown to MLA Eric Foster’s office and back at MP’s office.

Marches also taking place in Nanaimo, Prince George and many other cities.

See all the events at: http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/

Gather at the Art Gallery at 10.30 in the morning on the 25th May

Route can be found here

http://www.tonu.org/tonu/Mypics/MP02/MP015_MAM_map3.jpg

March Facebook page is at https://www.facebook.com/events/358912147557584/

Tony Beck from GE Free BC will be among the speakers

http://www.consciouslivingradio.org/

Sponsored by Raoul Bedi,  Local Food Activist and Conscious Media Consultant

Thierry is a great speaker – former geneticist and now an organic farmer who knows everything you need to know about what is wrong with GE crops.

Thierry will be at a community forum on GE crops on the 5th June. Go to the link below for more details

http://www.richmondfoodsecurity.org/ai1ec_event/community-forum-on-genetically-modified-food/?instance_id=

Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

“Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.”

Three weeks ago, Bee SAFE, a local volunteer group started by Huguette Allen, Jane Emlyn and Carla Vierke, held a public meeting at the Lumby Community hall to discuss how GMO crops affect other crops and why they’re being banned in many regions.

“GMO crops were accepted in our communities without people’s knowledge and contamination is occurring without people’s consent. There is no co-existence possible between GMO crops and other crops – by not deciding to ban them, we’re deciding to ban every other type of agriculture and to put the future of our food and our farms in the hands of corporations like Monsanto, who own patents on GMO seeds” said Huguette Allen.

Along with a presentation and discussion, Bee SAFE asked the public to cast a vote to show whether they were in favour of passing a resolution against GMO crops in their community. Looking at the vote results, Carla Vierke said: “It’s scary to see that had we not called for a vote, 7% of rural Lumby voters and 4% of Cherryville voters would have decided on the future of our communities. It is a very clear example that by not making a choice, you are in fact making a choice.”

Out of 405 votes cast, 293 were from area D, 53 from Lumby and the rest from neighbouring communities. Area D voted 92.8% in favour of a ban. “If people had not been pro-active and the GMO trend had continued, it would soon have become impossible for anyone to grow organic or conventional crops” said Jane Emlyn. “The solution now is to support diversified farming, to develop a resilient economy based on health, quality of life & protection of the environment.”

For the communities covered, go here http://avicc.ca/about-the-avicc/avicc-members-2/

Being a GE free zone means that citizens have said no to genetically engineered crops. A resolution is not a bylaw, but it makes everyone understand the level of opposition to GE crops.

Thanks and congratulations to all the local activists involved in this amazing victory for sustainable agriculture.

Please consider making a donation to GE Free BC through the donate button on the right hand side of this page. We are 100% volunteer with no staff or administrative costs, so all of your donation will go to our campaigns to promote sustainable agriculture and against GE crops in BC.

Rally :   For  policy change for Vancouver Island and the surrounding areas  to   move in the direction of being GE-Free.

https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto

Includes events in BC

http://m.straight.com/article/36913

Here is our response, which we sent to the Straight:

In his article on Golden Rice and the necessity of genetically engineered crops (4^th April) Gwynne Dyer makes a number of unsubstantiated claims.

Dyer claims genetically engineered (GE) crops are necessary to feed a growing global population. But about 60% of GE crops, particularly corn and soy, are used for animal feed, a very inefficient way of using resources to feed humans. And in North America, where about a third of the population is obese, we throw away 50% of our food – so why is it we need more food exactly?

Dyer argues that GE crops have helped increase yields, and herbicide and pesticide use are down. Where’s his evidence? A recent synthesis of 120 studies convincingly demonstrated the opposite: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58

Dyer notes that GE crops pose no risks to human health. How can he be so sure, given there’s no independent testing of GE crops. Our government simply takes the science given to them by biotech companies like Monsanto, and uses that to determine if GE crops are safe. Minor conflict of interest?

Dyer claims that GE rice is necessary to help overcome Vitamin A deficiency, a killer of poor kids in developing countries. According to the World Health Organization, breastfeeding, eating a diversified diet, and periodic supply of high-dose vitamin A in swift, simple, low-cost, high-benefit interventions, costing a couple of cents a dose, will be just as effective: http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en/index.html But if we invested in swift, simple, low cost solutions, where would the profits be for big bio-tech?