Tag Archives: GMO

China’s Genetically Altered Food Boom

 
China’s Genetically Altered Food Boom

In the wake of poisonings in Japan linked to Chinese-made dumplings, last week brought a fresh wave of scrutiny to China’s control over its food industry. In 2006 and 2007, European officials discovered an unauthorized variety of genetically modified (GM) rice made in China — illegal in both Europe and China — in processed food exported to European Union nations.

Last Tuesday, the European Commission enacted an emergency regulation on Chinese food imports: Starting April 15, food products containing Chinese rice will require mandatory certification that they’ve been tested for the experimental GM variety called Bt63.

The measure underscores a discomfort in the West with China’s growing dominance in the business of inventing and selling genetically modified seed. Faced with feeding every fifth person on the planet with less than one-tenth of the world’s farmland, Beijing has been pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into transgenic crop research and development, hoping the plants, whose DNA is combined with genetic material that programs them with traits like pest and weed resistance, will help farmers yield more

 
food and commodities at a lower cost — especially as farmland is being lost to development and drought. Most of China’s cotton is already transgenic, and rice, wheat, maize, soybeans and livestock are in the pipeline. “China decided that conventional technology would not allow it to feed its people,” says Clive James, chairman and founder of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA). In the 12 years since GM crops have been commercially grown, James says most planting has been in the Americas. “I believe that the second decade will be the decade of Asia,” he says.

It’s a shift that’s causing second thoughts on both sides of this enduringly controversial technology. The United States is the world’s most enthusiastic adopter of GM crops, growing vast amounts of crops like herbicide-tolerant soybeans and insect-resistant corn; here, the seeds of globally operating companies like Monsanto and DuPont have passed health and environmental muster. While U.S. regulators have determined GM foods are safe to eat, China’s fast growth raises the question of whether one country’s health safety trials can translate in another. “We’ve been saying, ‘Trust us,’” says Gregory Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington. “Now the shoe is on the other foot. And we’re not sure we like that system.”

In Europe, where consumer acceptance of GM food has always been lower than in the U.S., concerns over the incidents of Bt63 contamination may be rooted less in anxiety over China’s safety standards than in a more general worry over the ever-increasing use of GM crops around the world. China, after all, is not alone in its transgressions: the U.S. has also had major incidents of its GM plants showing up in the wrong food chains, costing big trade dollars from GM-wary nations. Last year, Gene Watch UK, a watchdog group that works with Greenpeace, recorded 39 worldwide incidents of illegal GM plants found in food supplies, or approved GM plants found in countries where they are illegal. Becky Price, who helps maintain Gene Watch UK’s public list of global GM contamination, says keeping track of these plants is still far from a perfect science. “Nobody has demonstrated how to grow a GM food crop and stop it from getting into the food chain,” says Price. “It’s a ridiculous concept.”

Beijing is listening. Long before last week’s announcement from the EC, Chinese officials were aware of the risks — particularly to its global image — in moving too fast on developing and trading its own GM food crops. So far, only a handful of minor food plants like papaya, tomato and bell pepper have been approved for commercial planting in China. A few years back, many scientists believed it would be the first nation in the world to give the thumbs up to genetically modified rice varieties like Bt63. But after Greenpeace found unapproved GM rice seed for sale in a Chinese market in 2003, and when illegal rice also started to show up in processed noodles in Europe, China’s Ministry of Agriculture appeared to back off. Now the experimental varieties are stuck in testing paddies around the country, and biotech labs’ funds are starting to be depleted by the costly requirement of buying back and destroying the rice from the farmers who grow it. “There’s no indication that if you continue, you’ll get approved,” says Jikun Huang, Director of the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Though the amount of rice exported from China is small, Huang says that if China became the first to commercialize GM rice and there was a slip-up in international trade, “People would lose faith in all [Chinese] commodities.”

Beijing faces a lack of confidence even at home. In a survey conducted last year by Greenpeace, 65% of consumers in Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou who were familiar with GM food preferred its conventional cousin. “Right now, I think if most people see that a plant is transgenic, they don’t like it,” says Li Huaping of South China Agricultural University. Despite China’s policy of mandatory labeling GM foods, Li says many of the transgenic papayas he helped develop go unlabeled in markets because vendors know they won’t sell as well. Nevertheless, Li is optimistic this will change: “As knowledge is spread, and people understand what transgenic means, I think more people will like it.”

To be sure, all of China’s R&D won’t lie fallow forever. If Clive James is right, the Decade of Asia is coming. If a serious virus were to threaten China’s crucial domestic rice supply, or if a well-positioned politician decided transgenic maize was the answer to soaring global food prices, Beijing’s green light could come quickly. And the world would have to be ready to go.

Source:
Time
By Krista Mahr
Feb. 18, 2008

California State Assembly Approves GMO Bill

 
California State Assembly Approves GMO Bill

AB 541, which could become California’s first state law protecting farmers from the hazards of genetically engineered crops, passed out of the full Assembly on January 29 with a vote of 49-12. It has the support of the California Farm Bureau as well as California Certified Organic Farmers, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, the National Farmers Union and many food safety and environmental organizations.

Introduced by Assembly Member Jared Huffman (6th AD) early in 2007, the bill was held over in the Agriculture Committee in April. Since then, AB 541 has been scaled back to address two provisions related to farmer protections.

AB 541 will enact protections for California farmers against frivolous lawsuits that intimidate and harass those who have not been able to prevent the inevitable – the drift of genetically engineered pollen or seed. It will level the playing field for farmers accused by agricultural biotechnology companies and other patent holders of contract violations, and discourage the practice of biotech companies sampling crops without explicit permission from farmers and prosecuting based on unverifiable testing results.

Specifically, the newly amended bill would provide for:

 
* Protection from patent infringement lawsuits for farmers unknowingly contaminated by GE crops. Currently, farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of such lawsuits without clear recourse or*
The establishment of a mandatory crop sampling protocol to be used by patent holders when investigating farmers they believe may have violated patents or seed contracts. This protocol would require the farmer’s written permission for sampling, and provide for a state agriculture official to accompany the patent holder during the sampling and collect duplicate samples for independent verification if requested by either party.

“I am very pleased that the stakeholders on this issue have found a way to address one of the issues related to genetic contamination of crops,” says Assembly Member Huffman. “While there is still work to do on other issues concerning genetically engineered food, AB 541 would be an important step in establishing basic protections for California’s farmers.”

The original bill included several other elements, including the establishment of the country’s first system of notification for the locations of GE crops; the confinement of experimental pharmaceutical-producing crops to greenhouses to protect the food system from contamination; and, legislative clarity that the GE crop manufacturer is liable in the event of contamination, and not farmers.

“While AB 541 as currently amended represents only a small piece of what our stakeholders identify as issues to be addressed, we think this represents a move in the right direction,” says Renata Brillinger, director of the Genetic Engineering Policy Project, the 13-member coalition of organic and conventional farmers, food industry, environmental, and faith organizations sponsoring AB 541.

The bill will now move to the Senate for consideration.

Illeagal GMO’s sowing in EU


Green activist s put Braila island, on the Danube river, under quarantine, after Greenpeace field investigations revealed that illegal Genetically Modified (GMO) Soya, is being grown and harvested there.

Romania — Environmental activists placed an entire island under strict quarantine after finding illegal genetically modified (GMO) soya being grown there.

Bralia Island in Romania is normally a quiet agricultural area on the Danube river but now it is the site of a massive environmental contamination by soya that has been genetically modified by the agricultural chemical company, Monsanto.

The peaceful action in Romania began early in the morning when 30 green activists from across Europe set up a ‘decontamination station’ at the ferry harbor region on Braila Island.

All automobiles leaving the island were decontaminated by being carefully washed to prevent the genetic contamination from spreading further.

It is unlawful for member states of the European Union which includes Romania, to grow GMO Soya. Greenpeace is calling on the Romanian government and the European Commission to act instantly to find and destroy all of the unlawfully cultivated GMO Soya.

“We have taken action to protect the rest of Romania from contamination by these illegal GMO crops, which pose massive risks to the environment, biodiversity and human heath. Romanian people have overwhelmingly rejected GMO,” said Gabriel Paun, Greenpeace Romania, GMO campaigner.

“This is not the first time Greenpeace has discovered illegal GMO production in Romania, the situation is out of control. The Government must immediately locate and destroy all of the crops before they enter the food chain.”

At the same time as activists were decontaminating Bralia Island in Romania, more activists were busy taking action against another site of GMO contamination in France. 20 volunteers painted a field of unlawfully grown GMO maize (corn) bright red, in order to expose its location.

The GMO maize, known as MON810, is another genetically modified product being pushed onto customers by Monsanto. The GMO maize is being illegally grown, as either the farmer, or the French governments have “forget” to tell the public of its presence as required under French law.

“By failing to take control, the Romanian and French governments are allowing biotech companies such as Monsanto, to run riot over their environment and ignore the wishes of European people; contaminating their food and their fields” said Myrto Pispini, Greenpeace International GMO campaigner.

Romania will be the back door of GMO to EU?

The Black Sea state which has joined the EU in 2007 was Europe’s biggest soy grower until 1989 and remains the continent’s alone produce gene-spliced soybeans, brought a decade ago by US biotech companies like Monsanto Co and Pioneer.
The green organizations have charged firms pioneering GMO’s of using poor east European states as a back door to a averse EU do not want to sell and grow this type of soy bean in EU between 1998 and 2004.

“The ministry decided to ban the cultivation of genetically modified soy from next year to comply with the European regulatory norms,” Constantin Sin, the agriculture ministry’s GMO expert told Reuters.

Monsanto officials in Bucharest were not immediately available to comment.

Biotech companies say their technology helps fight starvation and poverty but the green organizations and many Europeans oppose GMO’s, which they fear might be risky for humans.

Romania, where there is almost no reluctance to embrace biotech foods among its 22 million population, put 61,000 ha under soy in 2004. The land had risen to 88,000 ha last year, or 0.6 percent of the country’s whole farmland.
Gene-spliced soy, which is used by Romanian farmers as animal feed, is the only GMO crop cultivated in Romania and accounts for two thirds of it’s larger soy outputwhich they use. (The question: where take they the rest of the GMO’s soy bean?)

Sin said the ministry is also drafting legislation to ban sowing genetically modified seeds from previous years’ crops in 2006. The bill will come into force later this year, he added.
“The bill aims to discourage farmer s from planting (genetically modified) soy. There will be fines worth thousands of euros for those who don’t comply with it,” Sin said.

He said a switch to traditional soy crops and the good information about this growing method would help farmers - who started growing GMO’s tempted by the higher profit margins - to benefit from badly needed EU aid once the country joins the wealthy bloc.

Romania has banned the GMO’s product from the country but some weeks ago the investigators found two big harvest close to the Black Sea.

What is the GMO or GEO

What is the GMO or GEO

Behind the acronyms the following notions are: Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) or Genetically Engineered Organism (GEO). In fact these two acronyms are concerning to plan, animal or unicellular organism which is manufactured by genetically technology.
These two acronyms are collective nouns of the trans genetic organism in the vulgar tongue, law and press but they are wrong expression because the traditional plant improvement is also making “genetically modified organism” if the engineering use treatment with irradiation or chemical mutagen.

The difference is between in the traditional procedures and the genetically engineering that the traditional way make random changes to the complete genome (theoretically they make a new version from the organism or a new species) while the production of the GMO is directional and planned. During the procedures the engineering is changing a part of the genome or take into the genome a small sequence from another organism.


In this procedure they do not make a new species. They only give new attribute(s) to the original organism.

Here I would like to notice that some pharmacies and other industrial goods made exclusively by GMO’s help (for example insulin and interferon, enzymatic washing powder, etc.).

If somebody want to see what this technology can give somebody without any preconception he should think about the followings:

Why can be good the GMO?

- We can grove resistant plan to the cold, hot, dryness and we can provide meals in the countries where are the big starvations.
- We can get bigger yield in our farms.
- We can protect our agricultural plant from the herbicides.
- We can protect our agricultural plant from the illness.
- We can keep longer time the meals (like potato, tomato, green pepper and etc.) in the sock or in the shelf of the shop.
- We can rear bigger pork, cow and etc. who are resistant of the different type of illness.

These sounds good, aren’t they? But what can be bad or dangerous in the GMO.

Why should are we afraid from GMO?

- People play Russian’s roulette when we make a genetically modified organism. We are only leery of what we have done. We do not know what cause our work ( for example an American company make a new genetically modified tomato with the peanut gene sequence because they wanted to get illness resistant tomato in 91’. After the changes the engineers seen the tomato was resistant the illness but the finish goods causes same allergenic symptoms like the peanut (it can cause death if somebody is sensitive).
- People do not test enough time the meals or feed before we start to sell the GMO’s product in the market.
- People do not know what kind of changing cause the GMO in his or her environment (let see the butterfly and corn case which is the school example when we talk about the genetically modified organism.
- What will happen if people grow agricultural plant in the farms and it is resistant of the herbicides? People will use lot of herbicides without thinking they will kill all of the plant around of the farm and when the herbicides touch the mineral water and they will mix together in the earth somebody or something will drink it several miles far way.
- In the last thing: who will say STOP to the bionic companies when they want to sell their not enough tested product in hope of bigger gain in world.
- Do you need more example or these will be enough?

Everybody can tell you good and bad things in this theme but nobody can be true. If you want to be better informed or you want to gain better knowledge about GMO read everything which you can and trust only in your heart because you know the people can do everything for the dollars.

gmo