Monsanto voor beginners

Alles over gezondheid, voeding, lichaamsbeweging het menselijke lichaam en nog veel meer. Wil je gezond leven dan staat hier veel handige informatie.
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1518
Lid geworden op: vr 17 dec 2010, 19:44

ma 26 mei 2014, 23:41

GMO Grass: Coming to a Lawn Near You?
May 23, 2014

Afbeelding ... lawn-near/
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet
Berichten: 4228
Lid geworden op: ma 15 nov 2010, 19:53

di 27 mei 2014, 22:13

'Voedselmaker moet grondstof veiligstellen'

Nederlandse voedselproducenten moeten de levering van belangrijke grondstoffen zeker stellen om dreigende schaarste te voorkomen.

Dat stellen onderzoekers van KPMG in een rapport, dat samen met onder meer de brancheorganisaties van de levensmiddelenindustrie en Natuur & Milieu is opgesteld.

Doordat de wereldbevolking steeds rijker wordt, stijgt de vraag naar voedsel en komen ecosystemen steeds verder onder druk te staan. Zo worden er steeds meer bossen gekapt en worden de zeeën leeggevist om bijvoorbeeld aan de vraag naar belangrijke voedingsgrondstoffen als soja, visolie en suiker te kunnen voldoen.

''Veel van deze grondstoffen zijn nodig voor producten die de consument dagelijks koopt in de supermarkt'', aldus de onderzoekers.

Om ervoor te zorgen dat de grondstoffen voor een betaalbare prijs beschikbaar blijven moeten producenten ''voorsorteren'' op toekomstige ontwikkelingen. Bedrijven kunnen dit doen door over te stappen op betere landbouw- en visserijpraktijken, te investeren in productinnovatie en verantwoorde alternatieve grondstoffen te gebruiken.


De onderzoekers wijzen erop dat sojaboeren in India met de juiste training hun oogsten met de helft kunnen opvoeren. Het potentieel aan visolie kan ''aanmerkelijk'' worden vergroot door aan boord van vissersboten de olie ook te winnen uit restproducten die nu weer overboord gaan.

Verder kan de alternatieve zoetstof stevia een vervanger zijn voor biet- of rietsuiker.

Bedrijven kunnen ook winst boeken door meer samen te werken bij duurzame inkoop. Daarnaast zouden ze beter in kaart moeten brengen welke grondstoffen van strategisch belang voor ze zijn.

Door: ANP ... ellen.html
In de erfenis der eeuwen ligt veel wijsheid opgetast. Ook hier geldt: dwaas is hij die zijn eigen geschiedenis versmaadt.
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1518
Lid geworden op: vr 17 dec 2010, 19:44

wo 28 mei 2014, 13:46

Daniel Bissonnette, a very articulate 9 year old, mesmerizes listeners at the March against Monsanto event in Vancouver, on May 24, 2014, asking key questions on why children, the most vulnerable age group to ravages of GMO and pesticide, are subjected to the worst food possible.
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1518
Lid geworden op: vr 17 dec 2010, 19:44

do 29 mei 2014, 00:46

Big Biotech Seeks to Rule EU


Just on the heels of France banning all GMO cultivation, big biotech companies like Monsanto and Syngenta have been working to permeate and rise above EU government with what sounds like a corporate tribunal.

DuPont and Dow Chemical are poised to crash the EU with their co-created genetically modified 1507 Pioneer corn as well.

A corporatocracy didn't just occur out the blue, however. It's potentially being handed to biotech by the European Environmental Ministers with a law that sounds like a national ban (but actually isn't.)

Get this: according to Stop the Crop, the new "proposal gives biotech companies the power to decide whether a national ban is permitted or not." Gee, which way will biotech decide?

If biotech decides not, EU member states must submit a formal argument to companies like Monsanto and Syngenta with reasons why they want a crop ban. Will their arguments hold up in court? Basically, biotech gets significant legal say in the future decisions of the nations regarding GMOs. In that sense, it seems to place biotech corporations above European government and certainly above the individual member states and their people.

Discussion for the proposal takes place tomorrow, May 28th. For more information, Stop the Crop is referring people to Friends of the Earth Europe's short document entitled: "A poisoned chalice. Why the Greek Opt-out proposal for GM crops will do more harm than good."

Sustainable Pulse explains "A poisoned chalice..." this way:

The new law is being promoted as a way to give governments more sovereignty over decisions on whether to ban GM crops. However, the current proposals give biotech companies the legal right to decide whether a ban should be allowed. If companies refuse, governments are forced to fall back on vague, non-scientific legal grounds upon which to ban GM crops, opening the door to legal challenges

Adrian Bebb of FOE Europe said:

It is an affront to democracy that companies like Monsanto will be given legal status in any decision to ban their products. Governments must be able to ban unwanted and risky GM crops without needing the permission of the companies who profit from them.

For more than 15 years national governments have fought against new GM crops and strongly defended their rights to ban them. This proposal is a poisoned chalice that fails to give member states the solid legal grounds to ban genetically modified crops.

So the idea for GMO opponents moving forward is to bring out awareness of the new plan and seek to strengthen already existing, legitimate powers - not let them fade away into semantic, corporate-controlled legal oblivion.

The United States parallels the EU in a similar regard. Just on the heels of Vermont passing the first state GMO food labeling law, the DARK Act of 2014 (actual name is Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act') threatens to nullify any past and future state laws regarding GMO labeling and bans. ... le-eu.html
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1518
Lid geworden op: vr 17 dec 2010, 19:44

wo 04 jun 2014, 01:09

Monsanto's seed imperialism halted in Canada thanks to massive protests
June 01, 2014

Grassroots activism against transgenic encroachment has paid off in Canada, where licenses for genetically modified (GM) alfalfa have been put on hold, according to new reports. Massive protests in Montreal, Levis, Quebec City, Toronto and as many as 35 other towns and cities across Canada caused U.S.-based Monsanto and Forage Genetics International, the company responsible for creating GM alfalfa using Monsanto's technology, to have the issuance of their growing licenses delayed in accordance with the will of the people.

The Montreal Gazette explains that, besides widespread farmer resistance to the crop -- which is completely unnecessary, as natural alfalfa already grows heartily and steadily without the need for pesticides -- tens of thousands of Canadians have repeatedly expressed their disapproval of it. Even Quebec's union of agricultural producers, known as the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) of Quebec, has expressed strong disapproval of the crop.

"The UPA isn't against genetically modified seeds in general, but we voted unanimously -- for two years in a row -- that commercialization of GM alfalfa should be prohibited," stated Marcel Groleau, a UPA member and farmer who, along with his brother, raises 100 dairy cows in Quebec. Like many other farmers throughout the region, Groleau is concerned that GM alfalfa will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa, as alfalfa is a perennial crop pollinated by bees that spreads easily.

"Organic farms are very much against it, because GM alfalfa might spread, and it's a perennial, too," admitted Victor Lefebvre, director of Quebec-based Pickseed, a company that had planned to sell GM alfalfa.

Organic dairy, meat to be forever lost as a result of GM alfalfa
Dairy and livestock farmers in particular rely on alfalfa to feed their animals year-round. In fact, it is probably the most important staple crop currently grown in Quebec, which is why many farmers are speaking their mind about this potentially irreversible change to the agricultural process. Canada's organic market has tripled since 2006, topping $3.7 billion annually, but this entire market is threatened with elimination by GM alfalfa.

"We've developed this niche here. That's why the issue is more important here than in other provinces," explained Groleau to The Montreal Gazette. "Organic farmers will suffer significant commercial losses because GM contamination means they won't comply with Canadian Organic Standards."

As you may recall, Australian wheat and oat farmer Steve Marsh had his organic farm contaminated by nearby GM canola crops, the contaminated pollen of which blew over onto his land. Marsh lost his organic certification as a result and is now in the process of suing the farmer responsible for the contamination, which led to major financial losses.

Preventing GM cross-contamination is impossible, experts agree
Industry officials have repeatedly tried to coddle regulatory bodies into approving the crop on the basis that a mitigatory plan can be put in place to prevent cross-contamination. But those in the organic industry, not to mention the millions of consumers that rely on organic food for health and sustenance, recognize this as an empty lobbying ploy that simply won't work.

"The industry is pretending it can stop GM alfalfa from contaminating our fields but that's pure fiction," stated Gilbert Halde, President of the Union of Organic Milk Producers of Quebec, last year at a protest. "GM alfalfa cannot be contained by any type of 'plan.' Will the bees read the industry's plan?"

Groleau agrees, having told reporters that, no matter what Monsanto says, GM alfalfa will spread if it is eventually planted commercially. Canada has already suffered the consequences of GM flax, which spread to non-GM fields back in 2009, causing millions of dollars in losses for both farmers and taxpayers.

"What I've heard from specialists is that it will spread because of bees and water," opined Groleau. "Also, in Quebec, we have small farms, which means you can't easily isolate one farm from another. It would be almost impossible to prevent any cross-contamination and cross-pollination."
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet
Berichten: 23169
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

wo 04 jun 2014, 01:11

Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1518
Lid geworden op: vr 17 dec 2010, 19:44

do 05 jun 2014, 01:02

Agro-Giant Syngenta’s Shocking Tactics to Silence GMO Opposition: Blackmail, Character Assassination, Wrongful Imprisonment


A German farmer has revealed shocking GMO company tactics to silence him in an exclusive interview with RT Op-Edge.

German dairy farmer, Gottfried Glöckner, has told William Engdahl about attempted blackmail, character assassination and, ultimately, wrongful imprisonment he suffered when he refused to back off his charges that the Anglo-Swiss GMO company, Syngenta, had provided him with highly toxic GMO Maize seeds that ruined his prize dairy herd and his land.

After spending two years in prison, Glöckner is traveling round the world to tell the story and warn the public of the extreme danger of GMO seeds.

: The press made much of the fact that apparently the respected Robert Koch Institute had also tested your samples. Was that so?

GG: The Surveillance and Approval Authority in Germany at the time, the Robert Koch Institute, made absolutely no request for a testing of my Syngenta GMO corn. Instead, they wanted me to tell them with precisely what method the Bt toxins were proven to be found in the blood of my animals.

WE: Then there was an assessment of damages done to your livestock and fields you made with Syngenta. What resulted?

GG: Together with the Syngenta CEO for Germany, Hans Theo Jachmann, in April 2002 a damage report was undertaken. It included in addition to loss of animals, substitute feed grains needed, analyses and veterinary costs as well as cost of lost milk production. Syngenta paid only €43,000 of the €500,000 total damage estimated. The remainder has, as of this day, never been paid to me.

WE: As the German banker Hilmar Kopper would have said, they gave you “peanuts“ to end that story, but was it the end for you?

GG: Syngenta themselves actually made a written “recommendation” to dispose of my GMO Bt176 silo corn, “but not on green acreage.” They made tempting promises to me of various gifts like a new harvester, a new house, a new job and holiday travel. I refused. It was not right.

WE: You have fought a remarkable battle over years against the large concern Syngenta and the GMO lobby. Why?

GG: I wanted to finally hear an admission from Syngenta that there is a genuine problem with their GMO technology and that they had eliminated the toxin problem in their subsequent GMO products. Instead of that, I was hit with legal attacks after I had been invited by government officials, regional officials as well as private groups to make speeches all across Europe about my experience with Syngenta Bt176.

WE: How did Syngenta react?

GG: After our final negotiation for a resolution of the problem broke down, after Syngenta’s representative proposed to me, “With the total damages we divide 50-50,” he then called out to me afterwards when I refused, “What is going on with your marriage?” I shot back, “I’m not married to Syngenta!”

WE: That sounds bizarre. Why did Syngenta ask you about your private life?

: In the midst of my divorce proceedings suddenly my ex-wife, after she left our common home (the children, who were 17, 15 and 13, lived with me), was being represented by a new attorney provided to her by the industry lobbyist. With him she made the new charge against me of rape within the marriage. They presented no doctor’s report for that, also neither a psychological evaluation, nor credible statements from others, merely her allegation; that charge brought me, “in the name of the people,” directly into prison. I was released somewhat early after the state’s attorney learned of the true circumstances of my imprisonment.

: Did they want to make an example of you for other protesting farmers or was it something else in your view?

: I have to say as a former customer and injured party of Novartis/Syngenta, I find it unbelievable the methods this company operates with. In the time that I was in prison, a default summons of my ex-wife from the divorce settlement was executed twice. I paid the amount once, and after that the amount was again entered into the land register. The opposing attorney received the enforceable copy, which had already been settled, through my own attorney.

They also created a new company out of my farm holding where I had no legal rights; my office was broken into repeatedly, my home, files, machinery and electronic devices were stolen.

Furthermore, I had to fight five long years with the German Customs authorities.

They seized all my bank accounts and demanded I pay back money for milk going back four years on the argument that I was no longer a certified milk producer in the meaning of the Milk Quantity Guarantee Payments rules. All this took place during the time I made public the proof of presence of GMO in certain raw materials that had been labeled “contains no GMO.”

William Engdahl: Mr Glöckner, we’ve known each other since just before you were wrongfully sentenced to prison, but it is only recently that you have legally been able to tell your real story to the public. Please give us a little background.

Gottfried Glöckner: Since 1995 when genetically modified RoundupReady (RR) Soy was imported into the EU, approved under the principle ‘substantially equivalent,’ I had been interested in the subject GMO technology in plants. When in 1997 the EU approved the commercial sale of Syngenta GMO corn (Syngenta Bt176) I decided, as a farmer interested in new better technologies, to grow Syngenta’s Bt176 on my land.

WE: How did you proceed with the GMO Syngenta Maize seeds?

GG: I increased the portion of Bt corn over several years up to 100 percent of the corn I fed to my cattle from my harvest as silo corn and corn grain on my farm.

: Please describe for us what you began to see after you were feeding your cows a maize-portion of your feed mix only from GMO Syngenta Bt176 maize.

: In the year 2000 I experienced the first incidences of infertility, sicknesses and even deaths as well as severe birth defects in newborn calves.

WE: How did you react?

: After I organized an official test that included several investigations of my samples of soil and GMO corn, the results showed that the fatal effects were due to the genetically modified corn. Whereas Syngenta could find no Bt toxins in tests it made in its North Carolina laboratory, a lab in Germany found 8300ng/mg fresh Bt toxins with the exact same method in the same test sample as tested in Syngenta’s lab in North Carolina.

: Was there anything else that alternative text in Germany showed?

GG: The German lab found that there was a decline by weight of 24 percent of essential amino acids, vital for cattle feed, in the corn seed and a decline of 8.8 percent of the silo corn. With those results the lie of “substantial equivalence” or equality to conventional plants that was the basis of the EU Commission approval, was exposed as fraudulent.


WE: What was the result of your legal case with the German Customs?

GG: On September 11, 2011 I won the case in the special Financial Court in Kassel, acting as my own lawyer. The sum of the award I got was €625,128.

WE: Yet many German politicians still today plead for more GMO planting. Is that responsible?

GG: After Syngenta themselves declared in 2004 that they had failed with their GMO pursuits I am really astonished that the conservative Chancellor Merkel is a strong advocate for allowing planting of GMO crops in Germany! Even more astonished after I discovered that a study of GMO corn done by the Technical University Munich had been manipulated (to show completely dishonest positive results-w.e.). As a result of the public revelation, in April 2009 the GMO corn, Monsanto810 was prohibited by the German Consumer Protection Minister, Ilse Aigner.

WE: What did the German Government say to you after all this?

GG: A separate legal entity was created which never existed, and this fact was even ascertained by the German Supreme Court, BGH. Yet the government still said, “Mr Glöckner, that’s all very terrible what’s happened to you, but the Government supports this new technology.”

All conceivable facts and procedures have been turned on their head, the laws broken, only in order not to allow a legal damages claim to be executed.

WE: This all goes against the German law on genetic technology liability, doesn’t it?

GG: Yes. The law, GenTG § 32 Haftung, explicitly puts liability with the GMO seed producer. It states, “Should it happen that from the substance of an organism that has been genetically manipulated, someone dies, their body or health damaged or something damaged, the producer is responsible to make good any damage.” So much for the legal order of the State!

WE: And now you travel all over the world to tell the truth about the dangers of GMO and your chilling personal experience. This is genuine civil courage of which the world has far too little today.

GG: Yes, I am traveling internationally speaking in conferences, and I am happy with each success we see. Since a peoples’ referendum in 2005 for a gene-technology-free Switzerland, there has been no significant planting of GMO in Europe! Russia has forbidden all import of GMO raw materials. China has ordered grain ships loaded with unapproved GMO products to be returned to the USA or burned…and so on.

WE: What about holding an open public debate about GMO with Syngenta to give them a chance to tell their side of the story?

GG: I would gladly invite the CEO of Syngenta to a debate with me on the podium. Especially after Syngenta canceled their planned appearance at an international conference in October 2013 where I was also scheduled to speak…That would indeed have been an interesting conference had they appeared.

WE: How can readers follow the latest developments in this life-and-death vital story about the dangers of GMO for our animals and ourselves?

GG: There is constantly updated information, mainly in German, on my webpage.

WE: Thank you, Mr. Glöckner! ... nt/5385145
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1518
Lid geworden op: vr 17 dec 2010, 19:44

vr 06 jun 2014, 01:08

China bans GMOs from army food supply
June 05, 2014

The Chinese People's Liberation Army plans to ban the use of genetically modified foods from its supply chain, making the PLA the first military force in modern history to do so.

According to multiple reports, the decision comes following the publication last month of a report in an obscure Chinese government weekly by Lt. Gen. Mi Zhenyu, the former deputy director of the Chinese Academy of Military Science.

The English translation of Mi's essay was published just recently by Chen Yiwen, a senior official with the China Association for Disaster Prevention, on Chen's verified blog. According to the translated version, Mi charged that GMO residue of soybeans that are crushed to manufacture soy oil has found its way into the diets of Chinese citizens, thereby causing birth defects, depression, infertility and a rather lengthy list of additional afflictions.

What is worse, Mi asserts, is that the fault lies with China's largest supplier of oilseed -- which is a thorn in the side of China's strategic planners.

"The U.S. dumped soybeans on China due to huge subsidies for their soybean farmers, and in a few years destroyed the traditional Chinese soybean industry," Mi claimed. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that he could not immediately be reached to comment.

Part of a U.S. plot?

China's Agriculture Ministry has regularly denied claims of such "GMO leads," but Mi is just the latest military official to publicly come down on the side against GMO crops, and especially those from the United States. Last year, Maj. Gen. Peng Guangqian, the deputy secretary-general of China's National Security Policy Committee, also penned a column in which he warned that rising GMO grain imports would expose Chinese to a costly strategic error. Other top military leaders have just as publicly supported Peng.

As noted by WSJ:

The military men's positions underscore how closely GMO food is identified as a tool of Western -- particularly U.S. -- strategic policy, regardless of whether there's enough evidence to support the association. The broader public sentiment in China, mainly hinged on health factors, also runs against the notion of allowing GMO food for human consumption. That was the theme of the reaction to Greenpeace's claims that seven out of 15 random samples of rice sold in two markets in Wuhan tested positive for GMO strains. The non-profit said it had sent the samples to an independent testing agency.

Wuhan is the base for Huazhong Agricultural University, which is a major experimental institution for the government on GMO foods, and especially rice. School officials got into an argument with Greenpeace members last month after alleging that two employees of the activist group "stole" GMO rice seeds from somewhere on campus. A spokeswoman for the academic research institution told the Chinese daily paper Global Times that it rejects the activist organization's latest report and questioned its methods.

'Cadmium rice'

But China's bloggers were more apt to quickly side with Greenpeace. "There are also GMOs in Beijing!" one blogger wrote. "I wonder if markets there sell them too? It's so frightening! Municipal governments should clarify this!"

"We don't even know if GMOs are detrimental to health," said another. "All I want now is the right to know."

Regarding rice and other crops, Chin has additional problems besides GMOs -- pollution.

In a "state secret" report, the Chinese government admitted last month that one-fifth of the country's agricultural land was polluted, and that China's southern rice fields were particularly contaminated.

Scientists and researchers have found hazardous levels of cadmium, arsenic, nickel, lead and mercury in rice grown near the Yangtze and Pearl River Deltas, the report said, according to the Financial Times. Previous investigations by Chinese media have turned up severe cadmium pollution in rice that is grown in the southern province of Hunan, which caused national alarm. ... upply.html
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: blackbox
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1518
Lid geworden op: vr 17 dec 2010, 19:44

za 07 jun 2014, 01:28

Pakistan High Court Bans GM Crop Licenses for GMO Corn, Cotton
June 6th, 2014


As genetically modified crops pop up ever increasingly in Pakistan without a legal framework within which pesticide-resistant varieties of Bt cotton and Bt corn can be scientifically assessed, the Lahore High Court has ordered Pakistan’s federal government to halt all licensing for GM corn or cotton.

This decision ... 5JNMSjhIY_ will result in a complete stall of all supply and sale of GM seeds in Pakistan, especially those which are altered with high pesticide and herbicide resistance. Considering that these crops have elsewhere been found to cause super bugs, super weeds, and human and animal illnesses, it is a forward-thinking decision by Pakistani officials. The decision affects 23 varieties of Bt cotton and 14 new Bt corn varieties, which were planned for market release in 2014. ... fied-seeds

Of these 23 varieties, the GM corn strain MIR162, and MON810 have both already been banned in China and parts of the European Union.

Leading to the court’s decision was a public interest petition filed by a farmer’s rights network called the Kisan Board Pakistan. The petition disputes the 12th meeting of the National Bio-Safety Committee (NBC) held on March 12, 2014 in which applications for 23 new varieties of GM corn and 14 applications for new varieties of GM cotton were being considered for mass release.

Read: France Bans GMO Maize MON810

This is also not the first time that farmers have raised concerns about GM seed to Pakistani officials. The Farmers Association of Pakistan has complained in the past about low quality Bt cotton seeds.

This decision will hopefully further the installment of a strong regulatory system in Pakistan so that GM crop strains can be analyzed before they are haphazardly strewn across their agricultural lands.

Chaudhry Gohar, a progressive cotton farmer from Multan, told a local paper:

“The use of uncertified varieties of GM seeds increase input costs for farmers. The low levels of pest resistance in these seeds have increased insects’ immunity, necessitating the use of nearly double the normal amount of pesticides. The NBC also relaxed germination levels for crops from 75 per cent under Seed Act, 1976 to less than 50 percent.”

A spokesperson for the Kisan Board which filed the dispute over the new strains being considered for market has said:

“We needed to stop the government from approving uncertified GMOs. Pakistan’s textile industry will suffer the most if the quality of our cotton deteriorates.”

In addition to these notable outcomes, should the new GM strains be approved, the petition points out that proper tests and risks assessments have not been made, and therefore, planting GM corn and cotton is not safe for Pakistani farmers or consumers of those crops.

A senior official Pakistan Agriculture Research Council (PARC) official said:

“Since the passage of the 18th Amendment, however, none of the provinces had taken steps to provide a new regulatory regime for GMOs, leaving a legal vacuum.”

Hopefully this decision allows the legal infrastructure to be put into place to halt further GM crop production. ... -licenses/


DuPont Co. Sued for $1 Billion Over Genetic Technology
6 june
Afbeelding ... echnology/
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet, blackbox
Berichten: 6273
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:09

za 07 jun 2014, 04:19

De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet, wodan
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1518
Lid geworden op: vr 17 dec 2010, 19:44

vr 13 jun 2014, 16:36

Win: Kyrgyzstan Initiates 100% GMO Ban for 5.5 Million Population
June 12th

This past Wednesday a nation bordering China and South of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, decided to become one of the first countries in the world to ban all GMO crops as well as the sale and importation of genetically modified organisms. This means that roughly 5,500,000 inhabitants of this country can enjoy better reproductive, cellular, and digestive health while the environment evades millions more pounds of pesticides.

Joining the trend of other Asian countries to ban GMOs, with China’s recent refusal of 8 different shipments of GMO corn and the nation of Bhutan also going 100% organic, the tide seems to be turning for Monsanto and biotech monopolies who would push herbicide-‘resistant’ seed on the world.

The Kyrgyz Members of Parliament approved the third reading of the bill: ‘On the prohibition of cultivation, production, import and sale in Kyrgyzstan of products containing GMOs’. Food grown within the borders of the country as well as food being imported will be checked for GMO, and all genetically modified food will be refused or destroyed. The Ministry of Economy mentioned that it would be difficult to police GMO products, but not impossible.

To police for GMOs, there is reportedly to be a GMO testing laboratory built before 2015, where not only food coming from abroad, but also food grown in the country will be checked for GMO contamination. The Ministry of Economy noted that to prohibit the importation of GMO products on the ground will be difficult but possible.

The bill is to be finalized after President Almazbek Atambayev pens his signature.

Only 7% of the land in Kyrgyzstan is utilized to grow crops, with 45% being utilized to support pasture for livestock, but this is still an important message to send to the biotech industry which seems adamant on pushing poison food on the world against its will. Tobacco and cotton are two main industries in Kyrgyzstan, but if GMO corn, soy, and sugar beets can be prohibited effectively, then this country is still ahead of the game, even with its production of tobacco – since this crop is shrinking every year. The country also plans to ban tobacco and alcohol advertisers as well. ... e-100-ban/


Wave of GMO Labeling Victories Emboldens Movement to Take Back Food Democracy
June 11, 2014 ... democracy/


GMOs are agricultural warfare, biotech expert attests ....kan niet genoeg herhaald worden
June 11, 2014 ... xpert.html
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1518
Lid geworden op: vr 17 dec 2010, 19:44

za 14 jun 2014, 00:29

GM crops in England as soon as next year: Outrage as ministers back first commercial planting
2 June 2014
* EU vote could see weedkiller-resistent maize sown in England next year
* Critics say GN produce would spell disaster for wildlife and other crops
* Government decision to back vote at odds with Scotland and Wales

Anti-GM campaigners reacted with fury last night after the Government backed an EU vote that could lead to weedkiller-resistant maize being sowed in England next year.
Other European countries can ban the so-called Frankenstein food after EU ministers said members could opt out of GM planting.
Critics said England’s first commercial GM crops would spell disaster for wildlife and contaminate conventional and organic crops, with ‘catastrophic’ consequences for farmers.
The Government position is also at odds with those of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, which have opted for a ban.
Controversial: The government has backed an EU vote which could see weedkiller-resistant maize being sowed in England next year. Critics say it could spell disaster for wildlife and other crops

The EU vote allowing the planting of two types of maize resistant to the weedkiller Roundup was passed by agriculture ministers in Luxembourg, although the European Parliament must approve it.
Dr Helen Wallace, of the campaign group GeneWatch UK, said: ‘The Government has colluded with commercial lobbyists to fast track Roundup Ready GM maize into England, despite the expected harm to British wildlife such as birds and butterflies caused by blanket spraying of these crops.

‘If some farmers in England press ahead with GM cultivation, conventional and organic farmers across the country will face the unnecessary risk of loss of markets due to contamination with GM.’
The Government’s pro-GM stance also flies in the face of public opinion, with most consumers saying they are concerned about the impact of the crops on the countryside, wildlife and their health.
The approval of commercial GM planting has been stalled for ten years because the EU needed all member states to vote for it.

Environment Secretary Owen Paterson – the Government’s cheerleader for genetically-modified crops – has been pressing for regulations that allow individual member states to plant them once they have been declared safe by Brussels.

He said the EU decision will fast-track them into farms and supermarkets, adding: ‘This is a real step forward in unblocking the dysfunctional EU process for approving GM crops, which is letting down farmers and stopping scientific development.

‘Farmers will have more power in deciding whether to grow GM crops that have passed a robust, independent safety assessment.’

But Peter Melchett, of organic industry body the Soil Association, said: ‘In future, a committed, pro-GM Secretary of State like Owen Paterson could take the decision to make England a “GM country”, and once that is taken it will be difficult for a future Government to adopt a different position. This will lead to farmers losing export markets to the rest of Europe and most of the rest of the world, which would be catastrophic.’

The EU vote is a victory for multi-national biotech firms, which have spent millions lobbying British ministers and officials to speed up the approval of GM crops. The Government claims there is no risk to humans or the environment.

But European and US research suggests there are health concerns and a threat to wildlife, and warns of the damage from ‘superweeds’ that develop a natural resistance to the pesticides used on GM crops.

Liz O’Neill, director of GM Freeze, said: ‘Even if a country or region does establish a ban, they will find it very difficult to protect their fields and food from contamination if neighbours start growing GM.’

However, the Government said safeguards would be put in place to protect conventional crops from GM contamination.
Owen Paterson has been pressing for regulations that allow individual member states to plant GM crops once Brussels has approved them


The vote by EU ministers is the culmination of a campaign by the biotech industry and the Government to fast-track the approval of GM crops.

The collaboration began with a Westminster summit in summer 2012, attended by agriculture ministers and science minister David Willetts.

Organised by the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, which is funded and run by GM firms, it agreed that the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would lobby the EU to allow the planting of biotech crops in Britain, even if they were banned in other member states.

Agriculture Secretary Owen Paterson and fellow ministers spent months persuading their EU counterparts to agree. Yesterday they succeeded.

They were aided by an ‘independent’ review of GM by British scientists, suggesting the crops could prevent Third World starvation and create plants resistant to disease and pests..

But the Mail found that its five authors were GM supporters, and one was a consultant for biotech firm Syngenta. ... nting.html

Monsanto Teaching a Health Class In a School Near You?
June 12, 2014 ... ss-in.html
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: blackbox, Toxopeus, ninti
Berichten: 15967
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

za 14 jun 2014, 17:38

GMO Farmer in Texas Realizes GMO Dangers, Works to Educate Others
by Christina Sarich

March 26th, 2014

A Lubbock farmer planted GMO cottonseed on his farm back in 2005, believing the claims of the biotech industry that it would be cheaper to grow. But he has since learned that the crops don’t only perish due to super weeds, but are also full of genes which resist herbicides and pesticides – not something he thinks you or his own family would want to eat. Where once he thought he could save money on labor, he is now realizing that he was sold a health-risk he isn’t worth taking, nor is he willing to sell his friends and neighbors. Eric Herm, the Texas farmer; however, is one of the few people in his neck of the woods educated about GMO crops.

Herm is now a huge advocate for GMO warning labels, and is among a small group in the Republican-dominated state in support of labeling genetically modified organisms. His attempt to defeat big agribusiness is up against some major disinformation campaigns.

“I haven’t had a single constituent mention support for GMO labeling to me,” said state Rep. Drew Springer, R-Muenster, a member of the House Agriculture and Livestock Committee. Rep. Springer says that even if a measure to label GMOs was introduced, it would likely be ignored.

Herm realizes he has a steep mountain to climb – but attempts to educate people regardless of the lies being told by biotech. “Where I live, 90 percent of the people were looking at me like I was saying the aliens are coming,” he said.

Texas farmers are part of the burgeoning GMO cash crop business, which includes cotton, corn and soybeans – also some of the most contaminated crops in the US, considering the prevalence of genetically modified seed used to plant these seeds, specifically. Almost 90% of these crops are currently GMO, according to the Center for Food Safety, which supports GMO labeling. The problem with legislation at the moment is that the US FDA only supports voluntary labeling – which of course, the Big Ag companies aren’t going to do.

Though GMO labeling has been passed through states like Maine and Connecticut, Texas currently has no such requirement.

A spokesperson for the Texas Farm Bureau, Gene Hall, and advocate for Big Ag says that labeling GMO will bring unnecessary attention to the ingredients of a product – slowing sales. Exactly! If something is ‘absolutely safe’ as Hall states, then why not label it?

Activists in Texas are stepping up their game, though. You can check out GMO Free Texas on their Facebook page, and also get involved locally by telling your representatives just what you think of GMO. Texas is a big state, and halting GMO sales there would have huge ripple effects for the rest of the country. Help them tell the Farm Bureau and Big Ag ‘No to GMO’!
“You can fool some people some times but you cant fool all the people all the time”

Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1518
Lid geworden op: vr 17 dec 2010, 19:44

di 17 jun 2014, 23:17

Genetically modified ‘super banana’ to be tested on Americans
june 16, 2014


A vitamin-enhanced ‘super-banana’ developed by scientists is to be tested on humans. The trials are to take place in the US over a six-week period. Researchers aim to start growing the fruit in Uganda by 2020.

The bananas are ‘super’ because they have been genetically engineered to have increased levels of vitamin A – a deficiency of which can be fatal.

Hundreds of thousands die annually worldwide from vitamin A deficiencies, while many others go blind, the project's leader told AFP.

“The consequences of vitamin A deficiency are dire with 650,000-700,000 children worldwide dying...each year and at least another 300,000 going blind,” Professor James Dale stated.

“Good science can make a massive difference here by enriching staple crops such as Ugandan bananas with pro-vitamin A and providing poor and subsistence-farming populations with nutritionally rewarding food,” Dale said.

The project was created by Queensland University of Technology (QUT) in Australia and supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

“We know our science will work,” Dale said. “We made all the constructs, the genes that went into bananas, and put them into bananas here at QUT.”

Dale added that the genetically modified banana flesh is more orange than a usual banana, but otherwise looks the same.

The highland or East African cooking banana is a dietary staple in East Africa, according to the researchers. However, it has low levels of micronutrients, particularly vitamin A and iron.

If the project is given the go-ahead for Uganda after the US trials, micronutrient enriched/modified crops could also be given the green light for Rwanda, Kenya, and Tanzania.

“In West Africa farmers grow plantain bananas and the same technology could easily be transferred to that variety as well,” Dale stated.
GMOs and Gates

The claim that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) pose no risk to human and environmental health is far from settled, despite industry assertions.

In October, 93 international scientists said there was a lack of empirical and scientific evidence to support what they said were false claims made by the biotech industry about a so-called “consensus” on GMO safety. They said more independent research is needed, as existing studies which say that GMOs are safe are overwhelmingly funded and supported by biotech companies.

The Gates Foundation has a history of supporting GMO research and technology – at least since 2010, when the non-profit invested in a low amount of shares in biotechnology giant Monsanto. Gates has amped up support for GMOs so that “poor countries that have the toughest time feeding their people have a process,” adding that “there should be an open-mindedness, and if they can specifically prove [GMO] safety and benefits, foods should be approved, just like they are in middle-income countries.” Such support has resulted in criticism and suspicion of the foundation's agenda.

As for the worry that GMO seeds are increasingly consolidated in the hands of major agribusiness powers, Gates said in February 2013 – after his foundation reportedly sold the approximately $23 million in Monsanto shares it owned – that there are "legitimate issues, but solvable issues" with GMO technology and wider use. He added that one solution may be offering crops already patented but requiring no royalty dues.

Gates has supported the use of GMO crops in the developing world, as well as “large-scale farm land investments by foreign states in the developing world,” AFP wrote in 2012. Months ago, Gates stressed his support for GMO farming in Africa.

“Middle-income countries are the biggest users of GMOs...Small farmers have gotten soy beans and cotton and things like that. But we’re trying to get African agriculture up to high productivity – it’s about a third of rich-world productivity right now – and we need the full range of scientific innovation, with really good safety checking, to work on behalf of the poor,” Gates told Quartz in January.

GMO crops are now grown in 28 countries, or on 12 percent of the world's arable land, with the acreage doubling every five years. However, in the European Union, only two GMO varieties have so far been licensed for commercial harvesting (compared to 96 in the US).

In the US, an overwhelming majority of Americans say they support the labeling of GMO products – an effort that has gained traction in some states and interest in nearly all others.

Opponents of labeling – including powerful food industry and biotechnology players – are currently mobilizing their resources on the national level to stem the tide of sentiment against GMO proliferation. These groups have worked with supportive members of Congress to introduce federal legislation that would block states from passing mandatory GMO labeling measures like Vermont's, despite the “right to know” movement’s rising popularity.

GMOs have been in the food supply since the 1990s, and are included in roughly 70 to 80 percent of products available to American consumers, according to food manufacturers. The most widely used GMO crops in the US are corn, soybeans, and canola. ... ied-trial/
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: Toxopeus
Plaats reactie

Terug naar “Gezondheid / Voeding”