Cross posted at Earth Friendly Shopping
This really sucks
Earlier this week, Monsanto and its partner, a division of the Dow Chemical Company, received registration from the EPA and regulatory authorization from CFIA. The decisions allow a reduction of structured farm refuge from 20 percent to 5 percent for SmartStax in the U.S. Corn Belt and in Canada. The refuge reduction in the U.S. Cotton Belt would drop from 50 percent to 20 percent.
We are disappointed that the Obama EPA has caved to industry pressure like this. We think that Genetically Engineered foods are a threat to our health and environment. While it is nice that Michelle Obama has planted an organic garden, we really want to see more from the Obama administration in terms of food policy, and we think that this cave is a move in the wrong direction
To understand a little more about why this sucks, you need to understand what Genetically Modified, or (as we prefer to call them) Genetically Engineered foods are about, and what the dangers are.
What are Genetically Engineered Foods?
Genetically Engineered (GE) Foods, also known as Genetically Modified (GM) foods or Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are plants that have been grown for human or animal consumption, that have been modified in a laboratory to enhance a desired trait. The modification is usually performed by the insertion of a new gene into the target plant. The new gene may come from an entirely different species.
The best known example of this is the use of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer.
Now the first thing to gather out of this, is that they have engineered a toxin INTO the corn. So far, tests have not shown ill effects on humans from Bt toxins, but their pervasive use has shown the potential for disrupting ecosystems.
the EPA has found Bt safe enough that it has exempted Bt from food residue tolerances, groundwater restrictions, endangered species labeling and special review requirements. Bt is often used near lakes, rivers and dwellings
However, the tests used by the EPA to judge the safety of Bt toxins have been criticized as inadequate.
The manner in which mammalian toxicity and environmental impact of Bt crops is evaluated is spelt (sic) out in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) reports on the deregulation of GM crops that had been field tested. With both Bt insect resistant crops and herbicide tolerant crops, approval was not based on the Bt toxin proteins, nor on the bacterial enzymes providing herbicide tolerance in the crop, but on Bt toxin proteins or enzymes isolated from bacterial cultures.
The Bt toxins in bacterial cultures were produced using genes that differed from those used in the GM crops. The proteins were significantly altered in amino acid sequence from those in GM crops. The regulatory agencies and their advisory committees argued that so long as the bacterial products retained their active domains as toxins or enzymes and had similar immune profiles to the proteins produced in GM crops, they were "substantially equivalent" to the proteins produced in GM crops.
Get it? The EPA tests toxins that are similar to those produced by the Genetically Engineered corn, decides that they are "close enough" and declares them safe. Unfortunately in the in the regulatory confusion governing GE foods, this is all too common.
...safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food."4 However, 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 signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.
How Big is the problem?
BIG - According to the Center for Food Safety
The genetic engineering of plants and animals is looming as one of the greatest and most intractable environmental challenges of the Century...
...Currently, up to 45 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as is 85 percent of soybeans. It has been estimated
that 70-75 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves--from soda
to soup, crackers to condiments--contain genetically engineered
ingredients
And it isn't just plants. More and more genetically engineered animals are being released into the environment. For example, tilapia have been extensively modified
Tilapia fish, native to Africa, are cultured world wide as "poor man’s food", second only to carp as warm water food fish, and exceeding the production of Atlantic salmon (whose market value is twice that of tilapia). Tilapia has been extensively genetically modified and promoted as a transgenic fish exclusive for isolated or contained production. Transgenic tilapia, modified with pig growth-hormone, were three times larger than their non transgenic siblings.
The salmon nearest to commercial release is the Atlantic salmon engineered with a pacific salmon
growth hormone driven by the arctic antifreeze promoter gene. The rapid growth of that transgenic salmon is achieved, not so much by the transgenic growth hormone as by the antifreeze gene promoter that functions in the cool water desirable for salmon flavor
The industry claims that the only sterile transgenic fish are used, and that there is no danger of transgenic fish breeding with wild fish, but
A number of studies indicate that salmon produced in sea pens escape and breed with native species, introducing new disease and spreading pollution from the culture pens. These problems will probably be amplified in the fast growing transgenic stocks.
And this leads us back to genetically modified corn and soy. The reduction of the buffer zone increases the likelihood of Genetically engineered plants cross pollinating native, heirloom, and organic strains. In one case, Monsanto actually sued a farmer who did not plant their seeds, did not want their seeds, and received no benefit from the seeds. Monsanto won the suit because their plants had pollinated his.
...like seeds being blown in by the wind or falling from farmers' trucks. A two-mile stretch of my land runs along the main road that leads to the canola crushing plant and the gathering station. One farmer testified that he lost a lot of the GMO canola seed he was hauling when his tarpon broke in my area. He estimated he lost enough canola to seed 2,000 acres.
The farmer compared Monsanto's actions to dumping your stuff on your neighbor's property, then reporting him to the police for having stolen items.
There is huge money behind these engineered foods, and huge money, with the prospect of increased earnings per share can lead to long terms disasters. Just look at the housing market. We need to urge congress to take up the matter of revamping the regulatory regime for GE foods. We need to slow down the introduction and do more, much more and more realistic, testing