Genetically Modified Salmon: Update

April: CBAN and many others have been working around the clock to compile a list of signatories that oppose GM Salmon. Below is the press release opposing the fish.

You can also take action right now – CBAN makes it easy for you on their website.

Thank you to everyone that is helping us to move forward and protect our wild salmon stocks and our health!

PRESS RELEASE
Groups Oppose Genetically Engineered Salmon: Demand Immediate Disclosure from Environment Canada

For Immediate Release

Ottawa, Monday, December 6, 2010 – Sixty fisheries and oceans
conservation, environmental and social justice groups revealed today
that Environment Canada refuses to confirm or deny if the department
has already started a secret 120-day risk assessment to approve
genetically engineered (GE) salmon egg production on Prince Edward
Island. The groups today also released a joint statement of
“categorical objection” to the raising of GE fish and fish eggs (1).

Documents released in September by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revealed that the US company AquaBounty is seeking approval to sell its GE salmon into the US food market based on a plan to produce all its GE salmon eggs on Prince Edward Island (PEI) and then ship the eggs to Panama for grow out and processing. Following this revelation, groups made inquiries to Environment Canada but were told that any information about a possible risk assessment is confidential. The groups are calling for full disclosure and demanding that Environment Canada cease any approval process that may already be underway.

Public opinion stopped GM, says campaigner

Global resistance has halted the biotech giants, reports Environment Editor Michael McCarthy –  from the IoS co-sponsored Sustainable Planet Forum

Sunday, 26 September 2010

A grower examines his (unmodified) maize in Paraguay

The tide has turned globally against the introduction of genetically modified crops, Lord Melchett, the former director of Greenpeace and campaigner for organic farming and food, said yesterday.

Fifteen years ago, many governments thought GM crops and food would become the norm, but it has not happened because of rising public resistance around the world, and it will not happen, he said.

“This is a redundant technology and many people in Europe may be unaware of the extent of the resistance to GM in places like India and China, because they swallow the GM industry line that it is supported all across the world,” he said. “I have to say that where we are now with GM leaves me feeling very optimistic.”

AquaBounty GMO Salmon paid for by Canadian Taxpayers

April: it seems our Canadian government gave AquaBounty a decent chunk of cash to keep it’s GMO salmon project afloat – and AquaBounty is an American Corporation: the following are 2 articles with various ‘slants’ on this fishy tale…

Another (GMO) Fish Tale From Aqua Bounty

C Margulis
Corporate Crime Daily, January 27 2010
http://corporatecrime.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/another-gmo-fish-tale-from-aqua-bounty/
Earlier this month, genetically engineered (GMO) salmon produced by the US-company Aqua Bounty were reportedly condemned in Panama, due to fears that the super-salmon could escape and wreak havoc on natural fish populations. The company later claimed the report was inaccurate, but company documents  acknowledge that its Panamanian operation was established in 2008 with the goal of “conducting commercial trials of the Company’s AquAdvantage salmon.”

Whatever the situation in Panama, concerns about the impending approval of genetically engineered (GMO) salmon are nothing new (nor are concerns about farmed salmon in general: Greenpeace just announced that mega-retailer Target will stop selling all farmed salmon). An article last February [2009] noted that Aqua Bounty was “soon” expecting FDA approval for the GMO salmon, which grows more rapidly than its natural counterpart.

Aqua Bounty has been seeking FDA approval since 1996, and has repeatedly claimed approval was just around the corner. In 2003, company founder and then-CEO Elliot Entis told Business Week that he hoped for FDA approval within a year. In 2004, another report stated the company was looking for approval by the end of the year. Another Business Week story in 2006 noted the fish could be on the market “as early as 2008.”

Greenpeace activists quarantine illegal GE crops in Italy

Press release – July 30, 2010

Pordenone, Italy – Greenpeace activists from Italy, Austria, Germany and Hungary are quarantining illegal Genetically Engineered (GE) crops being grown in Italy. Wearing safety equipment to protect against contamination, the activists are isolating, cutting and securing the top of the GE maize plants, the part that contains the pollen.

Last week, Greenpeace took samples from the field in Friuli, northern Italy to a certified laboratory for analysis. The results confirm without doubt that the maize being grown in these fields is a patented Mosanto GE maize type, MON810. GE crop cultivation without a permit is illegal in Italy (1). There is considerable documentation highlighting the threats posed by MON810 to biodiversity, including the accumulation of toxins in soil, and negative impacts on species such as butterflies and moths (2).

“Greenpeace has taken action today to prevent any further contamination from these hazardous and illegal GE crops,” said Federica Ferrario, Greenpeace Italy Agriculture campaigner. “For days these crops will have been contaminating not only neighbouring fields, but countryside further away as well, as insects and winds disseminate their pollen.”

Nature’s Path is first in Canada to obtain Non-GMO Certification

Nature’s Path, a Richmond BC based privately owned company is the first in Canada to be granted the rights to label their products with the Non-GMO seals. Nature’s Path is owned by President and founder Arran Stephens.

Canada requires that any product labeled Non-GMO cannot claim 100% avoidance of GMO’s in their foods. They must meet the EU standards (less than 9/10ths of 1 percent). This is the first time a Non GMO label has existed in Canada.

Canada will soon see many products out with the Non-GMO labels soon. The US already has the label on many brands.

What is the Non-GMO label?

Three years ago a group of natural food retailers in North America joined forces to create the Non GMO Project, in an effort to establish Non-GMO labeling. The non-profit includes executives from Whole Foods, Big Carrot, Nature’s Path’s Dag Falck, John Fagan of Global ID Group, Mark Squire of Good Earth, George Sieman of Organic Valley Family Farms, and Megan Westgate, to name a few.

How to find products that do not contain GMO ingredients

While we have a list of some of the better non GMO products on this blog, many sites, such as Greenpeace have Greenpeace’s Non GMO Shoppers Guide and what is acceptable.  Another way to find out is to call each company whose products you use and ask. Most have a toll free number listed on their sites.

Why should you care?

This blog details many of the arguments against GMO’s. There are 3 main issues surrounding this technology: health, environment and corporate control of your food supply. Please take the time to educate yourself on these issues. And next time you shop, look for Nature’s Path and the Non-GMO label on their products.

Mexican GMO Corn’s First Harvest This Year

Mexico’s first crop of genetically modified maize – due to be harvested later this month – is stoking anxiety about the risks of biotechnology. Chinese environmentalists, concerned about the potential effects of gene-spliced rice in the world’s rice bowl, now look to Mexico as a test-case of how to counter the multinational seed companies’ push to raise so-called Frankenfoods that were created in their laboratories. In Argentina and Brazil, such GMO corn already is sown freely. At China Dialogue, an environmental website, pharmers and their mutant kernels are under scrutiny. Excerpts from ‘Corn Conundrums’:

The decision to allow genetically engineered corn to be sown inside Mexico, the birthplace of this cereal crop, is anathema for many Mexicans. In the central highlands, where wild grass called teosinte was first cross-bred into the staff of life some 9,000 years ago, corn is viewed not only as a staple food but as a sacrament of Mesoamerican civilization. Some indigenous tribes in Mexico still worship Centeotl, the Aztec corn god who protects harvests, and passions run high if any threat to corn is perceived.

Yet laboratory-altered corn, patented by the seed giants Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, is already ripening on 13 hectares in Sinaloa and Sonora states, and the first harvest is expected later this month. An analysis is due in July. Farm groups and environmentalists filed an appeal with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in February, arguing that Mexican officials have been unwilling or unable to prevent the illegal spread of genetically modified crops in their country and that it is too soon to permit biotech plantations before the consequences of genetic contamination – possibly irreversible – are fully understood. They are concerned that Mexican seed dealers have smuggled in thousands of sacks of genetically modified corn with impunity. The commission can refer cases to the Inter-American Human Rights Court if a government does not comply with its recommendations.

Study shows GMO crops ‘can cause liver and kidney damage’

Fresh fears were raised over GM crops yesterday after a study showed they can cause liver and kidney damage.

According to the research, animals fed on three strains of genetically modified maize created by the U.S. biotech firm Monsanto suffered signs of organ damage after just three months.

The findings only came to light after Monsanto was forced to publish its raw data on safety tests by anti-GM campaigners.

They add to the evidence that GM crops may damage health as well as be harmful to the environment.

The figures released by Monsanto were examined by French researcher Dr Gilles-Eric Seralini, from the University of Caen.

Yesterday he called for more studies to check for long-term organ damage.

‘What we’ve shown is clearly not proof of toxicity, but signs of toxicity,’ he told New Scientist magazine. ‘I’m sure there’s no acute toxicity but who’s to say there are no chronic effects?’

The experiments were carried out by Monsanto researchers on three strains of GM maize. Two of the varieties contained genes for the Bt protein which protects the plant against the corn borer pest, while a third was genetically modified to be resistant to the weedkiller glyphosate. All three strains are widely grown in America, while one is the only GM crop grown in Europe, mostly in Spain.

Monsanto only released the raw data after a legal challenge from Greenpeace, the Swedish Board of Agriculture and French anti- GM campaigners.

Dr Seralini concluded that rats which ate the GM maize had ‘ statistically significant’ signs of liver and kidney damage. Each strain was linked to unusual concentrations of hormones in the blood and urine of rats fed the maize for three months, compared to rats given a non-GM diet.

The higher hormone levels suggest that animals’ livers and kidneys are not working properly.

Female rats fed one of the strains also had higher blood sugar levels and raised levels of fatty substances caused triglycerides, Dr Seralini reported in the International Journal of Microbiology.

The analysis concluded: ‘These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.’

Monsanto claimed the analysis of its data was ‘based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning, and does not call into question the safety findings for these products’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244824/Fears-grow-study-shows-genetically-modified-crops-cause-liver-kidney-damage.html#ixzz0l6AR1iXO

Greenpeace puts out list of Non-GMO food companies

If you are looking for a list of Non-GMO/GE food companies, and a list of those companies that do use GM, Greenpeace has compiled a list you can print out and take to the grocery store. Thanks Greenpeace.

I have some additions to the good companies that don’t use GM. You can find them under the “Foods” page on this blog. I will be adding to them as I find them. I source them out by calling and speaking with their researchers and owners. I only post companies that are 100% Non-GE.

Greenpeace: Shopper’s Guide to Avoid Genetically Engineered Foods

You have a right to know.

Response to Western Producer newspaper: Greenpeace responsible for Triffid flax scandal

By April Reeves

I responded to this article in the ‘editorial’ on their Nov. 26/09 publication. It was written by 5 people. I wonder if the Producer is writing ‘nice’ things about Monsanto in order to continue their advertising. I owned a publication once; I know what that’s all about…

GM Acceptance/Opponents Fading

Positive signs for greater acceptance of GM foods, by Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce Mcmillan and Ken Zacharias

GREENPEACE’S European campaign against genetically modified crops has hurt Canadian farmers. The organization pressured European authorities to test Canadian flax for the presence of unauthorized genetically altered seed and pressured mustard processors to avoid Canadian mustard seed.

Greenpeace got what it wanted in the Triffid flax situation, a trumped up “scandal” to rail against, to frighten consumers about the alleged dangers of GM crops and inadequate government regulation and oversight.

Canadian farmers got what they didn’t want, market disruption, lower prices and a costly new flax testing system.

But they might take hope in signs that European obstacles to trade in GM crops are eroding and Greenpeace’s anti-GM campaign will eventually fail.

Bayer Admits GMO Contamination is Out of Control

Greenpeace International, Dec 8, 2009

• Straight to the Source

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

$2 million US dollar verdict against Bayer confirms company’s liability for an uncontrollable technology

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

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

Review of documentary ‘Monsanto Expose’

Monsanto Exposé

Review of the documentary “The World According to Monsanto: From dioxin to genetically modified crops. A multinational with your best interests at heart.” A film by Marie-Monique Robin.

This film is a hard hitting look at Monsanto’s history and origins in the chemical industry through its transformation into a biotech agricultural company and, particularly relevant for this website, its efforts to stamp out traditional seeds and replace them with patented genetically engineered seeds. It is a must see for anybody concerned about preserving our seed heritage and for anybody concerned about the general issue of food security.

Biotech Companies Walk out on Food Project

www.guardian.co.uk

Biotechnology companies developing genetically modified crops have withdrawn from a major international project to map out the future of agriculture, after it failed to back GM as a tool to reduce poverty and hunger.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development aims to focus attention on the problem of how to feed the world’s growing population, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has done for the challenge of global warming. Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF resigned after a draft report from the project highlighted the risks of GM crops and said they could pose problems for the developing world.

The companies argue the report should say their GM technology could secure future food supplies because it can boost yields and make plants more resistant to droughts and higher temperatures.