Monsanto
Beyond the Rows is a Monsanto Company blog focused on agriculture. Monsanto employees write about Monsanto’s business, agriculture, biotechnology, and the farmer.
Mar 20, 2009 | Read | 87 Comments » Tags: backyard garden, Farmers Market, HR 875, Linn Cohen-Cole, local food, Monsanto's Dream Bill, organic, Rosa DeLauro, Stanley Greenberg
Author: Monsantoco 
A recent blog post entitled Monsanto’s Dream Bill – HR 875 has created some ripples in the blogosphere and beyond. Several newspapers and even a radio station have picked up on it, and Monsanto has gotten a number of emails and phone calls.
The post claims Monsanto is behind the food safety Bill HR 875. The article explains that the bill is sponsored by Democratic Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and claims that her husband, Stanley Greenberg, “works for Monsanto”. It goes on to describe how the bill would give incredible power to Monsanto by criminalizing seed banking, requiring 24 hour GPS tracking of animals, stripping away of property rights, and forcing industrialized farming on America.
The trouble with this article is most of what is stated within it is untrue. Most notable is the allegation that Monsanto is behind this bill. The reality is that Monsanto does not even have a position on the bill. As far as Stanley Greenberg working for Monsanto – he did some contract work for Monsanto more than ten years ago.
I have actually read HR 875, a claim the author apparently cannot make. Nowhere is there any mention of seed banks, loss of property rights, or GPS tracking of animals. The bill seems to be nothing more egregious than a well-intentioned effort to improve food safety laws and processes. It was no doubt written in response to public concerns with relatively recent incidents with peanut butter, ground beef, spinach, etc.
The likely root of the offending blog post is a concern that food laws will make it more difficult to sell and process food that is grown locally. That’s a legitimate concern-especially for small enterprises that are hurt disproportionately by the fixed costs of regulation, which larger businesses can spread across more revenue.
I can’t say whether HR 875 would be effective at improving food safety, or whether it would create unreasonable burdens on local production and sale. But this is the discussion that needs to take place both in the blogosphere as well as in Washington. Wild and unsupported allegations do nothing to further the policy goals of improving food safety or supporting local food production and sale.
Category: At Monsanto
Tags: backyard garden, Farmers Market, HR 875, Linn Cohen-Cole, local food, Monsanto's Dream Bill, organic, Rosa DeLauro, Stanley Greenberg
From the rat studies with flavrsavr tomatoes
http://www.agbios.com/docroot/decdocs/bnfMFLV.pdf
states that the expert panel conclude “that the gastric erosions observed were incidental and not test article related”
Ewan, were any follow-up studies done to confirm that the gastric erosions were incidental and not test related?
Deborah, I’m assuming not, – I didnt actually read further than that quote from the document, but the next page tabulates the incidence of gastic erosions (showing that while in 2 of the studies these were only seen in transgenic treatments, in one study gastric erosions were observed in control and water treated subjects also) which I assume is where the conclusion of incidental non-test article related came from.
All the gastric erosions were also rated as minimal to mild in severity.
Even mild gastric erosions can mean health trouble–and over what time frame? What would follow if the study continued? I really believe a follow-up should have been done and should be done. On which page do you find your information, Ewan?
Even though Flavrsavrs are not on the market, and I am thankful for that, the research should have been extended. When there is an unexplained or unexplanable observation, we need to be as certain as we can that we understand it, to learn from it and prevent future problems. You can’t just dismiss findings or assume in the scientific method. How do we know that the method did not injure the animals or that they were not ill to begin with. That in itself would affect the validity of the study.
Deborah – pages 13 and 14 of the report (13 contains the statement that the erosions were incidental and not test subject related, 14 the table which shows incidence of gastric erosions as assessed by 2 different panels on 3 different tests)
I think it would have been interesting to see how the study progressed longer term, however I dont agree that it is necessary that the studies needed to be continued as they show no difference from the non-transgenic diet – the arguement can always be made, for any study, that the study wasnt long enough to observe results (so you only investigated effects to the 5th generation? How then can we know this product is safe to the 7th generation?)
Why would Monsanto sue Germany to end that sovereign country’s ban on growing and selling MON 810? Why should Monsanto, a corporation, be able to tell other countries how to legislate gmo’s?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8467513
HAMBURG, April 22 (Reuters) – Monsanto, the world’s biggest seed company, said on Wednesday it hoped legal action to end Germany’s ban on growing its genetically modified (GMO) maize would allow the variety to be sown for the 2009 harvest.
On Tuesday, Monsanto said it had started legal action against the decision on April 14 by German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner to ban cultivation and sale of Monanto’s MON 810 GMO maize which stopped it being sown for this year’s harvest.
The ban put Germany alongside France, Austria, Hungary, Greece and Luxembourg, which also banned MON 810 maize despite its approval by the EU as safe for commercial use in the bloc.
******************
Does Monsanto plan to sue France, Austria, Hungary, Greece and Luxembourg as well? Have they already been sued?
Deborah,
We would take legal action against Germany because we believe their ban was unwarranted and in conflicts with EU requirements.
This is how a democracy works. An aggrieved party can take legal action against those they feel have wronged them – including the government. We feel Germany has wronged Monsanto and German farmers.
It is the same concept that allows the Center for Food Safety to take legal action against USDA for approval of RR alfalfa. By your logic, CFS should not be able to tell the US, a sovereign country, how to legislate GMOs.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too Deb.
I don’t think that would be my logic, Brad. The people should have a say in their government in a democracy. The people of a nation need to participate to even have a democracy. I didn’t elect any large companies to represent me in government, nor do I expect them to craft the laws in their own interest. Surely, big business can represent its own interests to government, but not claim those of a country–or the entire Earth, for that matter. I don’t believe big business should have more sway with the government than the people do. When they do, we then have an oligarchy, not a democracy. If the people join together to support a common interest–like their environment, they are clearly able to organize and petition their government. We, the People…all of us.
Wasn’t the RR alfalfa was found to be a danger to the environment. Sometimes the balance of powers must correct legislation made without proper oversight.
What if a foreign company sued the US to force them to market a product banned by our government? Can you ever remember that happening? How well would that go over? I can only imagine “the nerve!” “The threat to our way of life and all we hold dear!” What if they said some of the American people want the product and they knew better that it is safe! That we must prove it to them with only evidence they will accept? Whose rights should supercede whose? Precautionary principle at work and about time!
I don’t believe Monsanto has the interest of German farmers in mind–I believe it is their own bottom line they are looking out for. And a challenge to any show of resistance. It certainly doesn’t look good. It might catch on…
Deborah,
You do not understand the details of this event or action.
There was NO finding that RR is unsafe. The suit on RR alfalfa involves the allegation that USDA did not follow appropriate processes set up under law/regulation.
It is much the same in Germany. We are alleging that Germany did not follow protocols set up under law, and that the German Ag minister acted in violation of EU requirements. These laws and requirements were set up under a democratic process. We are asking for our rights, and those of German farmers (and all citizens for that matter) to be upheld under existing EU law.
Law exists to establish and protect the rights of entities ranging from individuals to non-profit organizations to corporations.
Foreign countries have taken action against the US for violation of trade requirements under international law, and the US has taken actions against other countries. It is an unfortunately common occurence.
Monsanto’s interests, and those of German farmers who want to plant this corn, are exactly the same. They want to access to this technology. We want to provide it to them. Both parties want to be treated fairly, in accordance with law.
I beieve the Oregon seed company and CFS believe the seed is unsafe and will easily, perhaps even more easily than canola, contaminate the conventional and organic alfalfa. I realize that a proper EIS was not done. Strange how the regulatory bodies are not following the laws of the land.
Perhaps you do not understand by point, or are trying to deflect it.
Did the German farmers join Monsanto’s lawsuit, Brad?
That may be the Oregon seed company and CFS’ belief, but that is not why they are allowed to sue. They are allowed to sue under the allegation that USDA did not follow policy as stated articulately by Brad above. And I believe USDA is fought back saying they did follow the framework and protocol as they understood it. There’s no conspiracy here.
I think Brad did understand your point but it didn’t make any sense.
If farmers didn’t want it, then there would be no reason for us to sue regardless of whether farmers joined the lawsuit or not. Why would we undertake the expensive effort of a lawsuit if we thought that no farmer would buy the product? That’s just silly. And if we follow your logic…that we are really doing this just to make money…then it seems to reason that we would make money because farmers WANT the product. Lawsuits COST money. Your argument seems like double speak.
CFS and Co. may BELIEVE the seed is unsafe, but that was not the finding of the court.
Regulatory agencies must interpret the law. Sometimes others take exception to their interpretation, as evidenced with both the CFS/Alfalfa suit and our action agains the German government. The fact that CFS can take legal action against USDA, and Mondsanto can take action against Germany, is a sign of a healthy and functioning system.
I can see nowhere in your posts where you ask whether German farms have signed on to Monsanto’s legal action. Your charge of deflection is spurious. To my knowledge they have not, as of yet. I do not know whether the law or process under which we have initiated action has provisions which allows other parties to sign onto the action.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2008/09/02/0716458.pdf
The district court considered voluminous evidentiary submissions
from both sides, including the detailed declarations
of multiple witnesses regarding the scope of permanent
injunctive relief and scientific papers on the factual issues
involved. The parties’ experts disagreed over virtually every
factual issue, including the likelihood of genetic contamination [sounds familiar]
and why some contamination had already occurred.
Defendants’ evidence included declarations and live testimony
by Forage Genetics’ president, Mark McCaslin, declarations
of an APHIS official, Neil Hoffman, and a declaration
from a scientist at Colorado State University, Bob Hammon,
who had conducted a study sponsored by Forage Genetics on
pollen movement from alfalfa-seed fields by bees. Plaintiffs’
evidence included Hammon’s study, which they argued supports
their position, as well as declarations from seed growers
whose crops had been contaminated with the Roundup Ready
gene and scientists who opined that genetic contamination is
likely to occur.
The district court rejected
the conditions proposed by the agency because it found that
genetic contamination had occurred when similar conditions
were in place pursuant to Forage Genetics’ contracts with its
Roundup Ready alfalfa growers. Defendants, joined by intervenors
Monsanto and Forage Genetics (collectively, “appel-
12022 GEERTSON SEED FARMS v. MONSANTO
lants”), now appeal the injunction, arguing it is too broad.
Neither the government nor the intervenors now question the
existence of a NEPA violation. They dispute only the scope
of the injunction, and whether the district court should have
held a further hearing.
With respect to harm, the court found that genetic contamination
of organic and conventional alfalfa had already
occurred, and it had occurred while Monsanto and Forage
Genetics had contractual obligations in place that were similar
to their proposed mitigation measures. It held that such contamination
was irreparable environmental harm because contamination
cannot be reversed and farmers cannot replant
alfalfa for two to four years after contaminated alfalfa has
been removed. The court also reasoned that appellants would
be unable to enforce compliance with any proposed mitigation
measures, given the government’s admitted lack of resources.
The court therefore did not presume that irreparable harm was
likely to occur only on the basis of the NEPA violation; it
concluded that plaintiffs had established that genetic contamination
was sufficiently likely to occur so as to warrant broad
injunctive relief, though narrower than the blanket injunction
sought by plaintiffs
Deb,
Our discussion around the alfalfa case has been:
1. My point that, like Monsanto’s legal actions against the German Government, CFS and company sued USDA with the allegation that they did not follow proper procedures relative to the approval of RR alfalfa and filed suit.
2. Your unsupported claim that the court in the alfalfa case ruled RR alfalfa to be a “danger to the environment”.
In the segment of the document you cite, the court’s reference to “contamination” was not in relation to environmental safety, but to impacts on organic crop and certification – economic harm, not environmental. The court ruled that USDA had violated NEPA because they did not conduct an assessment in accordance with NEPA. It did not rule there was danger to the environmental. The fact that the assessment is now under way is testament to this. Similarly, the fact that the court allowed plantings of alfalfa that occurred prior to the ruling to remain planted (albeit with restrictions to protect against as of yet – in absence of the NEPA assessment – unassessed risks to organic), provides similar testimony.
The question of whether there is risk of “contamination” to organic crops will be determined by the USD A assessment, not the courts.
If you are going to provide text of a document, it is appropriate that you provide the link to the entire document so that readers can compare that text into the context from which it was taken.
Silly me, I was considering other farms and conventional alfalfa, itself, to be in the environment. And the link is provided. That is where the entire text comes from.
Here is what I see was considered:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2008/09/02/0716458.pdf
With respect to harm, the court found that genetic contamination
of organic and conventional alfalfa had already
occurred, and it had occurred while Monsanto and Forage
Genetics had contractual obligations in place that were similar
to their proposed mitigation measures. It held that such contamination
was irreparable environmental harm because contamination
cannot be reversed and farmers cannot replant
alfalfa for two to four years after contaminated alfalfa has
been removed.
After considering the likelihood of irreparable injury, the
court next considered the balance of hardships. The harm to appellants was economic, and the court reasoned that
Roundup Ready alfalfa accounted for only 15% of Forage
Genetics’ total revenue and “much, much less of Monsanto’s.” Monsanto and Forage Genetics contend
that the district court disregarded their financial losses,
but the district court considered those economic losses and
simply concluded that the harm to growers and consumers
who wanted non-genetically engineered alfalfa outweighed
the financial hardships to Monsanto and Forage Genetics and
their growers.
The district court finally considered the public interest, the
fourth factor in the framework for injunctive relief. See N.
Cheyenne Tribe, 503 F.3d at 843. The court, while recognizing
that agricultural biotechnology has social value, held that
it would be in the public interest to enjoin the expanded use
of Roundup Ready alfalfa before its impact was studied,
because failing to do so could potentially eliminate the availability
of non-genetically engineered alfalfa.
Appellants also argue that the district court should have
deferred to APHIS’s proposed interim measures because of
the expertise of the government agency, despite the agency’s
now undisputed failure to comply with NEPA.
Here, the agency’s proposed
interim measures would perpetuate a system that was found
by the district court to have caused environmental harm in the
past. While the agency’s response may deserve deference,
Idaho Watersheds does not require the district court to adopt
it automatically. The district court did not abuse its discretion
in choosing to reject APHIS’s proposed mitigation measures
in favor of a broader injunction to prevent more irreparable
harm from occurring.
You did provide a court link in your original reply Deb – my apologies on that. I believe however that it is a link to the appeal, not the original decision. This is the orginal decison:
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/judges.nsf/b9f8bdbb1bf21c2088256d480061fe97/05528e50cbd9a1c78825728200027954/$FILE/6-1075%20Geertson.pdf
Here is where our conflict arises. If you read the original decision, Judge Breyer states that “Substantial questions are raised
as to whether (1) the deregulation of Roundup Ready alfalfa without any geographic
restrictions will lead to the transmission of the engineered gene to organic and conventional
alfalfa;(2) the possible extent of such transmission; and (3) farmers’ ability to protect their crops from acquiring the genetically engineered gene.”
He did not conclude or rule that environmental harm would occur – that was not his role. He concluded there were “substantial questions” on the topic of “contamination” and went on to order APHIS to prepare an EIS in order to address those questions.
There was no ruling of environmental harm.
Brad Says:
April 23, 2009 at 7:49 am
It is much the same in Germany. We are alleging that Germany did not follow protocols set up under law, and that the German Ag minister acted in violation of EU requirements. These laws and requirements were set up under a democratic process. We are asking for our rights, and those of German farmers (and all citizens for that matter) to be upheld under existing EU law.
______________
I am under the impression that Germany invoked the safeguard clause, as provided by the EU, to ban the MON 810. Is this illegal?
I note that France did the same, and the decision was upheld by its courts.
My understanding of the safeguard clause allows an EU member company to implement a ban in conflict with EU findings only when there is new data. Germany has not cited any new studies or data, but is referencing existing studies which have been reviewed by the EU.
I don’t have background on the France lawsuits, if there were any, but will get it. It is my understanding however that the European Food Safety Authority has declared these bans to be unfounded.
France Followup:
The European Food Safety Authority has rejected France’s argument invoking the safeguard clause relative to their ban on Mon 810:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902156394.htm
The EU regulatory committee heard the EFSA opinion in February, but did not come to a conclusion (either supporting nor denying the French ban). This will be voted on by the Council at some point in the near future.
There are seperate, ongoing legal actions being taken in France.
I meant that the French courts had upheld the ban:
http://www.thecampaign.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1145
French Court Upholds Ban on Gene-Altered Corn Seed
The New York Times
BY JAMES KANTER
March 19, 2008
But the Conseil d’État upheld the ban until it could rule on its scientific underpinning. Hearings are expected to be held in coming months.
In his ruling, Judge Jean-Marie Delarue pointed out that a report issued in January by a committee of French specialists had called for more studies on the product’s safety.
French officials were correct to have paid attention to “new elements brought to light by the committee that could be seen as posing a grave risk to the environment,” Judge Delarue wrote.
Brad Says:
April 24, 2009 at 3:41 pm
You did provide a court link in your original reply Deb – my apologies on that. I believe however that it is a link to the appeal, not the original decision. This is the orginal decison:
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/judges.nsf/b9f8bdbb1bf21c2088256d480061fe97/05528e50cbd9a1c78825728200027954/$FILE/6-1075%20Geertson.pdf
———————-
My link is to the judges’ opinions on the appeal, the final word so far. But to your link, I find the APHIS et al position appalling:
In this context, plaintiffs [Geerston et al]identify what they believe are several
significant environmental impacts that will be caused by Roundup Ready alfalfa, or that at
least may be caused by the deregulation of the genetically engineered alfalfa.
The paucity of caselaw is unsurprising given that one of
Congress’s express goals in adopting NEPA was to “attain the widest range of beneficial
uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health and safety, or other undesirable
and unintended consequences.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(3) (emphasis added). A federal action
that eliminates a farmer’s choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer’s
choice to eat non-genetically engineered food, is an undesirable consequence: another NEPA
goal is to “maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety
of individual choice.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(4).
To put it another way, if the government’s action could eliminate all alfalfa, [THINK ABOUT IT]
there would be no dispute that such action has a SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT [my caps], even though the
primary impact is the economic effect on alfalfa and livestock farmers.
The government’s apparent belief that the farmers’ and consumers’
choice is irrational because the engineered gene is similar in all biological respects to a gene
found in nature (although never in alfalfa) is beside the point. An action which potentially
eliminates or least greatly reduces the availability of a particular plant–here, non-engineered
alfalfa–has a significant effect on the human environment. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b) (“A
significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will
be beneficial”).
APHIS failed to answer these substantial questions, concluding instead
that any environmental impact is insignificant because gene transmission is the problem of
the organic and conventional farmers [HOW CONSIDERATE AND EQUITABLE]and weeds always develop resistance to herbicides. As
such reasons are not “convincing” and do not demonstrate that the agency took a “hard look”
at the potential environmental impacts of its deregulation decision, plaintiffs’ motion for
summary judgment on its NEPA claim that APHIS is required to prepare an EIS is
GRANTED.
—————–
Who is APHIS looking out for? What blatant disregard of organic and conventional farmers, the environment and consumers!!
Deb,
The final decision was the one by Judge Breyer. Appeals simply uphold or overturn decisions.
The bottom line is that courts did not find RR alfalfa to pose a risk to the environment. That was not the court’s role or expertise. As you quoted, the judge said that “APHIS failed to answere these questions”. That was the meat of the matter and why APHIS is now conducting the EIS.
Think about it, if the judge ruled there were environmental risks with RR Alfalfa, why would USDA now be doing an EIS???? You portray this as if it were already determined. It has not been.
I realize the final decision was Judge Breyer’s. That’s why I quoted it originally. The dissenting judge’s opinion is there as well. Breyer said that RR alfalfa had already contaminated organic and conventional crops by following the APHIS guidelines, so how can those policies be sound and workable? If you care about contamination. He also said there is a risk of the non GM alfalfa no longer existing. NO LONGER EXISTING. Take it as you will. I just hope the EIS and commenting period that follows will be above board. I read it and see that Breyer has serious concerns for the environment, organic and conventional farmers, and the consumer. The public good as he said.
Anyone who is interested will have to read it for him or herself and interpret the language.
Deb,
Your original question/assertion that began this thread read “Wasn’t the RR alfalfa was found to be a danger to the environment.”
The answer to that question is “no”.
The decision of the court was that “Substantial questions are raised as to whether (1) the deregulation of Roundup Ready alfalfa without any geographicrestrictions will lead to the transmission of the engineered gene to organic and conventional alfalfa”
In short, the court found that USDA had not adequately addressed the question of whether there were risks of RR alfalfa. You are quoting the judges opinions that led to that ruling.
More follow up on Monsanto V Germany:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKL558166220090505?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
HAMBURG, May 5 (Reuters) – A German court on Tuesday rejected an urgent application from U.S. biotech company Monsanto to end Germany’s ban on cultivation of Monsanto maize containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, had requested an urgent decision to lift the ban imposed on April 14 by German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner stopping cultivation and commercial sale of Monanto’s MON 810 GMO maize which prevented it being sown for this year’s harvest.
The court in Braunschweig in north Germany rejected an application for an emergency ruling to overturn Aigner’s decision so as to allow sowings for the 2009 crop.
A statement from the court said Germany’s law on GMOs laid down that a ban on a new plant variety did not need to be justified by proven scientific research which showed without doubt the crop to be dangerous.
It was enough when research showed there were indications that the crop could be dangerous, the court said.
The court ruled that German authorities had not made an arbitrary or biased decision in imposing the ban.
The court statement added: “There is no proven scientific evidence that the genetic maize could lead to increased danger to the environment.”
“But new studies could indicate that the poisonous substance (generated by genetic mutation) could not only have an impact on the pests which it is aimed at combating, but also on other insects.”
HR 875 may have stirred up a lot of inaccurate hysteria, but you can’t really blame folks for being paranoid about what Monsanto is up to. After all, it’s the company that brought us saccharin, agent orange and aspartame, to name a few. GM seeds may have their place, but do do small farmers. Here’s a good article from the Virginia Hopkins Health Watch about HR 875 hysteria and what real food safety means: http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/hr875foodsafety.html
Laurel:-
Aspartame – considered safe in 90 countries globally (scientific evidence shows it to be safe)
Saccharin – safe, no longer requires labelling. (scientific evidence shows it to be safe)
Agent Orange – brought to you by… the US government (and manufactured by Monsanto and other chemical companies by order of said US government) – and discussed here :-
http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/04/27/agent-orange-and-monsanto/
I THOUGHT YOUR FOOD WAS SAFE!! I GUESS THESE GUYS DIDNT GET THEIR CHECK THIS MONTH!!!! OOOPS!!!!
Now an accredited group comes out with some of the most scathing information. I cant wait to see how mansanto tries to tell everyone that this group is a bunch of crazies too..
HERE IS SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT!!!!!!!
F. William Engdahl
Global Research,
Friday, May 22, 2009
US Doctors’ association calls for Moratorium on GMO Foods
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has just issued a call for an immediate moratorium on Genetically Manipulated (GMO) Foods.
In a just-released position paper on GMO foods, the AAEM states that ‘GM foods pose a serious health risk’ and calls for a moratorium on GMO foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes ‘there is more than a casual association between GMO foods and adverse health effects’ and that ‘GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health.’ The report is a devastating blow to the multibillion dollar international agribusiness industry, most especially to Monsanto Corporation, the world’s leading purveyor of GMO seeds and related herbicides.
In a press release dated May 19, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, which describes itself as ‘an international association of physicians and other professionals dedicated to addressing the clinical aspects of environmental health,’ called immediately for the following emergency measures to be taken regarding human consumption of GMO foods:
* A moratorium on GMO food; implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labelling of GMO food.
* Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GMO foods.
* Physicians to consider the role of GMO foods in their patients’ disease processes.
* More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GMO foods on human health.
The AAEM chairperson, Dr Amy Dean notes that ‘Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients’ and the public’s health.’ The President of the AAEM, Dr Jennifer Armstrong stressed that ‘Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions. The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed oil.’ The AAEM’s position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http:aaemonline.org.
The paper further states that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) technology ‘abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years.’
The AAEM paper further states, ‘several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signalling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.’
They add, ‘There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill’s Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.’
GMO is toxic
The AAEM paper should give grounds for official rethinking of the current quasi laissez faire regulatory stance to GMO in which the solemn word of the GMO seed companies such as Monsanto is regarded as scientifically valid proof of safety. The AAEM study is worth citing in detail in this regard:
‘Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signalling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system. ‘
AEEM is not an accredited organization. Neither AEEM nor it’s specialty of “clinical ecology” are recognized by the AMA or other credible organizations.
The studies it relied upon to make its claims have been refuted by numerous organizations.
AEEM’s previous work on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity has been shown to be flawed. Their rationale on a moratorium on GMO foods is equally flawed and in conflict with legitimate scientific and regulatory bodies worldwide.
there are plenty of things that could be considered flawed in monsantos work as well. Does that make them a non accredited organization. Of course not
AEEM is a group of people (fairly large)internationally who have many members who are accredited doctors,scientists and the like.
Just because something is in conflict with another group of accredited scientists and doctors doesnt make them wrong.
THere must be a more substantial argument than that.
The fact that no outside organization has accredited them makes them a non-accredited organization.
Brad Says:
May 28, 2009 at 9:35 am
The fact that no outside organization has accredited them makes them a non-accredited organization.
******************
But it does not necessarily make them wrong.
Perhaps this is Monsanto’s Dream Bill. Isn’t this a partial public subsidizing of biotech and mandating biotechnology in connection with foreign aid?:
Monsanto does, however, mention lobbying on Senate Bill 384—the so-called Global Food Security Act—which would gear U.S. foreign aid policy to promote GMO seeds in developing countries, according to gristmill.
******************
Bill 384 provisions:
As for the language about GMOs and biotech, the bill amends Section 103A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to read:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-384
(4) include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology.
Scared described them as a accredited organization – I was correcting him in mentioning them that they are not.
Not bing accredited does not make them wrong, but it does certainly bring their credibility (note tha “accredited” and “credibility” have a common root. AEEM’s opinions are in conflict with the AMA and any number of accredited organizations. Certainly any reasonable person would conclude thatAEEM’s and their opinions suffer on the credibility scale.
SB 384 is not our Dream Bill. Yes we support it as evidenced by our lobbying activities.
As I understand it, the bill would make biotech research funding available to developing countries should they choose to want to do research in this area. Monsanto would not benefit directly from this but as we obviously support ag biotech, we support positive developments in biotech and giving countries who could benefit from it the choice in exploring the technology and the benefits that it may offer their citizens.
Others such as the Center for Food Safety, (who I believe you are affilliated with Deborah?) have been lobbying against this inclusion in the Bill. CFS would not be directly harmed by the legislation, but are still active in opposing it.
Our support does not make it our Dream Bill. This is just our democratic process in action – interested parties weigh in with their opinion.
I am not affiliated with the Center for Food Safety or any other organization–other than signing a petition here and there if I support the cause and receiving a newsletter.