User: flenvcenter Topic: Food-National
Category: Food Safety :: GMOs
Last updated: Oct 26 2014 04:41 IST RSS 2.0
 
1 to 20 of 3,804    
GMOs Expose Dangerous Science Disconnect in Agriculture 26.10.2014 Green on HuffingtonPost.com
A contentious issue in the upcoming Colorado and Oregon GMO labeling referendums is the perceived safety of consuming genetically modified foods. Question a representative of the National Corn Growers Association or the American Farm Bureau Federation about the safety of eating GMOs and you'll rightly be scolded about the scientific evidence that consuming those crops is as safe as any other. These representatives of the American farm lobby wield enormous political clout with conservative and rural lawmakers. They also influence farmers' decisions. But, ironically, they are AWOL when it comes to publicly communicating the consensus on the science behind the single greatest threat to agriculture, which is human-induced climate change. What's the result of this willful ignorance? A U.S Department of Agriculture survey released this year revealed that a scant 7.8 percent of corn belt farmers believe that human activity causes climate change. Compare that to the fact that 93 percent of 2014's planted corn ...
Also found in: [+]
Colorado Proposition 105, GMO Food Labeling Measure, Draws Big Spending 24.10.2014 Green on HuffingtonPost.com
DENVER (AP) — Farms and fields dominate Colorado ads opposing a ballot measure to require labels on some foods that have been genetically modified, with farmers telling voters the labels will damage their businesses. But farmers and agriculture groups are just bit players in the $11 million campaign to defeat Proposition 105. The real money is coming from biotechnology giant Monsanto Co., which has given more than $4.7 million, and food giants like Pepsico and Coca-Cola, which sent a combined $1.9 million to fighting the proposal. Hormel Foods, Kraft Foods, Kellogg Co. and The Hershey Co. are also outspending farm groups to fight the proposal. Food companies are pouring big money into fighting a similar ballot measure in Oregon, too. Colorado and Oregon are battlegrounds in a national war over genetically modified organisms, or organisms that have been altered at the molecular or cellular level. So-called GMOs now make up almost the entirety of many staple crops, such as corn and soybeans, which are used ...
Also found in: [+]
Tests Find Monsanto’s Soy, Genetically Engineered for Heavy Pesticide Spraying, in Portland-Bought Infant Formula 24.10.2014 Commondreams.org Newswire
Also found in: [+]
How Real Change in the Food System Starts at Retail 22.10.2014 Green on HuffingtonPost.com
By guest blogger Joyce de Brevannes, market outreach manager for the Non-GMO Project It's been 20 years since the " Flavr Savr " tomato, the first commercially produced genetically modified organism (GMO), appeared on grocery store shelves. The tomato, whose genes had been spliced to include genes from an Arctic flounder to extend its shelf life, had its life cut short when consumers vocally fought back against its questionable genetics and lack of flavor and retailers rejected it for its inability to hold up during shipping. Since then, GMOs have become increasingly prevalent in the food system, and consequently more hidden from consumer view. At present, more than 80 percent of packaged foods include GMO ingredients, and many Americans have been consuming GMOs at almost every meal for years without realizing it. However, the tide is changing as consumers become increasingly aware of the unlabeled presence of GMOs in food. Today's savvy shoppers are demanding more transparency with regard to where their ...
Also found in: [+]
Battles rage in Oregon, Colorado over genetically modified foods 22.10.2014 LA Times: Nation
Voters in two Western states are caught in fierce battles over whether consumers will know what is deep inside their food.
Also found in: [+]
Food giants spend millions to take on GMO labeling 22.10.2014 Durango Herald
Colorado voters continue to be pounded by multi-million dollar political advertising campaigns, often with the two candidates or issue opponents fairly evenly matched, with no respite in sight until Election Day.But on one particular issue, the campaign ads are entirely lopsided. Labeling genetically modified food, commonly called GMOs...
Also found in: [+]
Jeremy Johnston: Support Prop. 105 22.10.2014 Steamboat Pilot
Don’t you think that you have a right to know what’s in your food? In response to your editorial, “Our View: Proposition 105 is costly and confusing,” here are a couple of facts to help clear up some misconceptions about Prop. 105 and genetically modified organisms: Colorado has what is called a single subject initiative law. That means only one statute can be amended or added per initiative. Because meat, dairy, alcohol, gum, pharmaceuticals and restaurant food are governed by different state statutes by law, they had to be exempted from this initiative but are not exempted from future regulation. This initiative applies to packaged foods and produce, which is 70 percent of what is in the grocery store. GMOs have not been proven safe for long-term human consumption. Proposition 105 opponents site the fact that no studies show GMOs to be unsafe, but it’s a two-way street. No long-term studies exist to show that they have no harmful effects, either. No plant varieties have been engineered to be drought ...
Also found in: [+]
Sowing the seeds of an illogical crop ban 22.10.2014 LA Times: Opinion
Last year's half-baked and unsuccessful proposal to ban genetically engineered crops in Los Angeles has not improved with time. Yet here it is before the City Council again, complete with wild statements about bioengineered food, chock full of inconsistent logic and, just like last year,...
Also found in: [+]
China’s Growing Bets on GMOs 21.10.2014 Technology Review Feed - Tech Review Top Stories

New technology and large government research initiatives in ­genetically modified crops are giving China a storehouse for a more populous future.

How will China get enough to eat? More than 1.3 billion people live in the world’s most populous nation, and another 100 million will join them by 2030. China is already a net food importer, and people are eating more meat, putting further demands on land used to grow food. Meanwhile, climate change could cut yields of crucial crops—rice, wheat, and corn—by 13 percent over the next 35 years. Mindful of these trends, China’s government spends more than any other on research into genetically modified crops. It’s searching for varieties with higher yields and resistance to pests, disease, drought, and heat. The results are showing up in the nation’s hundreds of plant biotech labs.

Also found in: [+]
China’s GMO Stockpile 21.10.2014 Technology Review Feed - Tech Review Top Stories

With its world-leading research investments and vast size, China will dominate the future of genetically modified food—despite the resistance of its population.

It is a hot, smoggy July weekend in Beijing, and the gates to the Forbidden City are thronged with tens of thousands of sweat-drenched tourists. Few make the trek to the city’s east side and its more tranquil China Agricultural Museum, where several formal buildings are set amid sparkling ponds ringed by lotus plants in full pink bloom. The site, which is attached to the Ministry of Agriculture, promises that it will “acquaint visitors with the brilliant agricultural history of China”—but what’s missing from the official presentation is as telling as what’s on display.

Also found in: [+]
Ban on GMO plants advances at L.A. City Hall 21.10.2014 LA Times: Top News
Also found in: [+]
Appeals Court Revives Syngenta, Bunge GMO Lawsuit 21.10.2014 WCCO: Local News
(credit: CBS)A federal appeals court gave agricultural chemical-maker Syngenta Seeds hope Monday that it may be able to proceed with a lawsuit against grain storage and transportation company Bunge North America for refusing to accept one of Syngenta's genetically modified corn varieties.
Also found in: [+]
Our View: Proposition 105 is costly and confusing 19.10.2014 Steamboat Pilot
Proposition 105 would require genetically engineered food produced in Colorado to be labeled Our view The measure is unnecessary, costly and will hurt Colorado’s farmers and ranchers. Proposition 105 would require foods that are genetically modified or produced with genetic engineering to be labeled with the words “Produced with Genetic Engineering.” This ballot measure sounds good on the surface, but upon closer study, we don’t think it is as simple and low-cost as proponents claim it to be, or even necessary. The proposition would establish a separate food labeling system unique to Colorado, which we think is burdensome and confusing, and would be substantially more expensive than the $113,000 estimated by the Colorado Legislative Council in the Blue Book. We think the actual cost of the labeling would be in the millions. A study conducted on a similar measure that Washington state voters defeated last year showed that GMO labeling would cost taxpayers there $22.5 million per year. And even if the ...
Also found in: [+]
Pesticide Use Skyrocketing on GMO Crops While Pro-GMO Media Run Interference 18.10.2014 Green on HuffingtonPost.com
by David Bronner, president of Dr. Bronner's Michael Specter's recent articles in the New Yorker bashing Vandana Shiva and the labeling of genetically engineered foods (" Seeds of Doubt "and " The Problem with G.M.O. Labels ") are the latest high-profile pro-genetically modified organisms (GMO) articles that fail to engage with the fundamental critique of genetically engineered food crops in U.S. soil today: Rather than reduce pesticide inputs, GMOs are causing them to skyrocket in amount and toxicity. Setting the record straight, Ramon J. Seidler, PhD, former senior scientist for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has recently published a well-researched article documenting the devastating facts, " Pesticide Use on Genetically Engineered Crops ," in Environmental Working Group's online AgMag. Seidler's article cites and links recent scientific literature and media reports, and should be required reading for all journalists covering GMOs as well as for citizens seeking to understand why their ...
Also found in: [+]
Monsanto Spends Millions in Bid to Defeat Local GMO Labeling Initiative 17.10.2014 CommonDreams.org Headlines
Also found in: [+]
Modified: GMO Labels that Actually Work 17.10.2014 Green on HuffingtonPost.com
When the "in" crowd wrests the levers of power from the "out" crowd, be ready to duck. Trendy slogans may well become administrative fiat. Authoritarian fashion-sense often relies on poor reasoning and an even poorer respect for individual autonomy. For a case in point, look no further than the intensifying push for genetically modified labeling in Colorado (pending state motto: "We're Cooler than California"). Genetically modified foods are definitely "out" for Colorado's urban-farmer blisterati, and they want the state to help make their case. Proposition 105 , like California's failed Prop 37 , asks Colorado voters whether it ought to be mandatory to include labels on all products containing genetically modified ingredients. Coloradans might just outdo those Pacific-fronting pikers on this one, as happened with marijuana. Weed is hip, even good for you. Genetically modifying food? "That's just not cool, man . . . " Consider the contradiction: After removing overstepping authority on recreational, ...
Also found in: [+]
GMO labeling foes spend big on campaigns in Oregon, Colorado 17.10.2014 Science
By Carey Gillam (Reuters) - Opponents of GMO food labeling proposals on the ballot next month in Oregon and Colorado have contributed roughly $20 million for campaigning against the proposed laws, nearly triple the money raised by supporters of the initiatives, campaign finance reports show. Both measures would require labels on foods made with genetically engineered crops, which are common in the United States. Voters in Colorado and Oregon weigh in on the issue in mid-term election voting on Nov. 6. ...
Also found in: [+]
EPA Approval Highlights Need for GE Labeling 16.10.2014 Green on HuffingtonPost.com
On Wednesday, in a quiet but profound decision to approve a dangerous weed killer, the EPA chose the rights of Dow Chemical Co. and the biotech lobby over those of the American people, particularly our children. While the decision will now be litigated, our real hope as citizens to protect ourselves from such potentially carcinogenic herbicides is to get our government to approve mandatory federal labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods. Explaining the connection requires that I get down into the, um, weeds. The EPA approved the herbicide Enlist Duo to kill weeds in corn and soybean fields. In the months leading up to the decision, more than 500,000 citizens, 50 congress-people and dozens of eminent physicians, weed scientists and public health experts had urged the EPA not to approve Enlist. Enlist Duo is the combination of two different chemicals, glyphosate and the even more toxic 2,4-D, created by Dow AgroSciences to be used in tandem with their genetically engineered Enlist Duo seeds, which ...
Also found in: [+]
Climate sceptics exploit double standards of eco-warriors 16.10.2014 New Scientist: Sex and Cloning
Greenpeace will never defeat climate-change denial if it employs the same unscientific fear and smear tactics in its opposition to GM crops, says Fred ...
Also found in: [+]
Failing Humans and Planet, EPA Greenlights 'Agent Orange' Herbicide 16.10.2014 CommonDreams.org Headlines
Also found in: [+]
1 to 20 of 3,804