Disappointing GMO recommendations in report delivered by review into Australian food labelling

The Labelling Logic - the Final Report of the Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy was released this week.

Unfortunately its recommendations concerning new technologies will allow many foods containing ingredients derived from either genetically modified agricultural produce or genetically modified product used in the food making process to remain on supermarket shelves as naked of appropriate labelling as they are today.

Knowing how dishonest some current label declarations are already when it comes to genetically modified ingredients, I can see no incentive for full declarations in the future.

New Technologies

Recommendation 28: That as a general principle all foods or ingredients that have been processed by new technologies (i.e., all technologies that trigger pre-market food safety assessments) be required to be labelled for 30 years from the time of their introduction into the human food chain; the application of this principle to be based on scientific evidence of direct impact on, or modification of, the food/ingredient to be consumed. At the expiry of that period the mandatory labelling should be reviewed.

Recommendation 29: That only foods or ingredients that have altered characteristics or contain detectable novel DNA or protein be required to declare the presence of genetically modified material on the label.

Recommendation 30: That any detection of an adventitious genetically modified event be followed by a period of monitoring and testing of that food or ingredient.

Recommendation 31: That foods or ingredients with flavours containing detectable novel DNA or protein not be exempt from the requirements to declare the presence of genetically modified material on the label.

Recommendation 32: That foods or ingredients that have been genetically modified and would require declaration if labelled be declared on menu/menu boards or in close proximity to the food display or menu in chain food service outlets and on vending machines.

Recommendation 33: That governments ensure effective monitoring of labelling requirements in the Food Standards Code relating to genetically modified foods or ingredients through support for sufficient Australian and New Zealand laboratories, observing world best practice protocols, and with the necessary resources and analytical skills.

Recommendation 34: That the requirement for mandatory labelling of irradiated food be reviewed.

Recommendation 35: That Food Standards Australia New Zealand and other relevant bodies develop as a matter of urgency a standard for regulating the presence of nanotechnology in the food production chain, consistent with the recommendations in this Report relating to new technologies.

Monsanto-Mahyco GM eggplant toxicity study receives a fail from researcher - wonder what the opinion will be on Monsanto's latest SDA soybean effort?

Slowly, study by study, faith in the safety of food on supermarket shelves is being eroded.

From those such as A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health (which in 2009 threw doubt on the reliability of Monsanto findings and whose authors apparently successfully defended against defamatory claims by the biotech lobby) to the BT BRINJAL Event EE1 The Scope and Adequacy of the GEAC Toxicological Risk Assessment: Review of Oral Toxicity Studies in Rats (November 14, 2010 by Dr Lou M Gallagher, PhD, Wellington, New Zealand) which found:

SUMMARY

This evaluation of Bt brinjal studies is based on requirements for a rigorous evaluation of food safety for the people of India and their health. Departures from Indian and international published standards for the 14‐day and 90‐day studies are a cause for concern 1.

The current food safety studies for Bt brinjal were not conducted in accordance with published standards, did not accurately summarize results, and ignored toxic endpoints for rats fed Bt brinjal: in particular, rats fed Bt brinjal for 78 out of 90 days (only one dose level) experienced:

• organ and system damage: ovaries at half their normal weight, enlarged spleens with white blood cell counts at 35 to 40 percent higher than normal with elevated eosinophils, indicating immune function changes.

• toxic effects to the liver as demonstrated by elevated bilirubin and elevated plasma acetylcholinesterase.

Major health problems among test animals were ignored in these reports. The single test dose used was lower than recommended by the Indian protocols. Release of Bt brinjal for human consumption cannot be recommended given the current evidence of toxicity to rats in just 90 days and the studies' serious departures from normal scientific standards.

So, if this is the true state of affairs concerning the humble eggplant once it was unconventionally altered, what hope is there that Monsanto's virtual minion in all things genetically modified Food Standards Australia New Zealand will actually have conducted the following stated process?

FSANZ has not previously assessed a GM food crop with a consumer focused nutritional modification.
FSANZ will need to undertake a safety assessment of high scientific complexity and include a nutritional assessment, which is not normally required for GM crops expressing agronomic traits.
This Application is anticipated to involve an assessment of the risk to public health and safety of above average complexity.

Well might you ask because this is what FSANZ found and signed off on:

On the basis of the data provided in the present Application, and other available information, food derived from soybean MON87769 is as safe for human consumption as other commercially available soybean varieties.

Basically telling Australian consumers that a genetically modified enriched soybean food will be safe to eat because the patent-owner Monsanto says that this is so and, this say so probably doesn't involve any in-depth animal studies because FSANZ does not normally require this level of safety assessment.

Will you be feeding any form of soybean product to your children after May 2011?

Given the lax GM food labelling laws in Australia - would you even know if you were?

The GMO lobby creates a LOL

So which contributor in the BIOfortified: stronger plants, stronger science and stronger communication online community was responsible for telling the world that the humble macadamia nut (eaten by indigenous Australians for thousands of years) is a relatively new food?

franknfoode Frank N. Foode

@HerbRealm How many years have Kiwifruit and Starfruit and Macadamias been trialled on humans to ensure their safety? (relatively new foods) 13 Jan

The joke gets better when we remember that 'Starfruit' is merely the commercial branding of a fruit cultivated and eaten for hundreds of years in Asia and, that 'Kiwi Fruit' is the marketing re-brand of a conventionally created cultivar of another ancient food.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

In 2007 Monsanto gets US Government to run heavy-handed interference in Europe?

If you thought that Monsanto & Co doesn’t 'own' successive U.S. governments, this excerpt from a diplomatic cable from the American Ambassador to France concerning the GMO maize variety Mon810 and forwarded to Washington may change your mind.

The highlighting is mine.

¶1. (C) Summary: Mission Paris recommends that that the USG reinforce our negotiating position with the EU on agricultural biotechnology bypublishing a retaliation list when the extend "Reasonable Time Period" expires. In our view, Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the Commission. In France, the "Grenelle" environment process is being implemented to circumvent science-based decisions in favor of an assessment of the "common interest." Combined with the precautionary principle, this is a precedent withimplications far beyond MON-810 BT corn cultivation. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices. In fact, the pro-biotech side in France -- including within the farm union -- have told us retaliation is the only way to begin to begin to turn this issue in France. End Summary.

¶2. (C) This is not just a bilateral concern. France will play a leading role in renewed European consideration of the acceptance of agricultural biotechnology and its approach toward environmental regulation more generally. France expects to lead EU member states on this issue during the Slovene presidency beginning in January and through its own Presidency in the second half of the year. Our contacts have made clear that they will seek to expand French national policy to a EU-wide level and they believe that they are in the vanguard of European public opinion in turning back GMO's. They have noted that the member states have been unwilling to support the Commission on sanctioning Austria's illegal national ban. The GOF sees the ten year review of the Commission's authorization of MON 810 as a key opportunity and a review of the EFSA process to take into account societal preferences as another (reftels).

¶3. (C) One of the key outcomes of the "Grenelle" was the decision to suspend MON 810 cultivation in France. Just as damaging is the GOF's apparent recommitment to the "precautionary principle." Sarkozy publicly rejected a recommendation of the Attali Commission (to review France's competitiveness) to move away from this principle, which was added to the French constitution under Chirac

¶4. (C) France's new "High Authority" on agricultural biotech is designed to roll back established science-based decision making. The recently formed authority is divided into two colleges, a scientific college and a second group including civil society and social scientists to assess the "common interest" of France. The authority's first task is to review MON 810. In the meantime, however, the draft biotech law submitted to the National Assembly and the Senate for urgent consideration, could make any biotech planting impossible in practical terms. The law would make farmers and seed companies legally liable for pollen drift and sets the stage for inordinately large cropping distances.
The publication of a registry identifying cultivation of GMOs at the parcel level may be the most significant measure given the propensity for activists to destroy GMO crops in the field.

¶5. (C) Both the GOF and the Commission have suggested that their respective actions should not alarm us since they are only cultivation rather than import bans. We see the cultivation ban as a first step, at least by anti-GMO advocates, who will move next to banor further restrict imports. (The environment minister's top aidetold us that people have a right not to buy meat raised on biotechfeed, even though she acknowledged there was no possible scientific basis for a feed based distinction.) Further, we should not beprepared to cede on cultivation because of our considerable planting seed business in Europe and because farmers, once they have hadexperience with biotech, become its staunchest supporters.

¶6. Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious andmust be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect a nearly victory.

PARIS 00004723 002 OF 002Stapleton

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

And GMOs march on and on.......

For those concerned about the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in Australian crops, there is now an online global register of contamination events.

This GM Contamination Register is the first of its kind in the world.

Genetically modified crops were first commercially grown on a wide scale in 1996. But, there has always been concern about their effects on both health and the environment. A specific concern has been that once released, it would not be possible to contain or control these organisms yet there is no global monitoring system.

Because of this failure of national and international agencies, GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace International launched this joint initiative in 2005 to record all incidents of contamination arising from the intentional or accidental release of genetically modified (GM) organisms (which are also known as genetically engineered (GE) organisms).

It also includes illegal plantings of GM crops and the negative agricultural side-effects that have been reported. Only those incidents which have been publically documented are recorded here. There may be others that are, as yet, undetected.

This site is intended to be a resource for individuals, public interest groups and governments. The register can be searched to see where, when and how contamination has taken place. It includes information about, and links to, sources and the GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace web sites as well as other useful sites.

If you would like to know when incidents are added to the GM Contamination Register, send an email to:
info at gmcontaminationregister.org (replacing 'at' with the @ sign) with 'UPDATE' in the subject line.

Here is an Australian example:

* In June 2000, Monsanto reported to the Australian authorities that in May, approximately 57.6 tonnes of Roundup Ready GM cotton seed from field trials were ginned at three gins in Queensland without segregation and identity preservation. This constituted between 4.5 and 9.1% of all cotton seed ginned on that day at the designated gins.
As a result of the lack of segregation and identity preservation, the Roundup Ready cotton seed was mixed with non-Roundup Ready cotton seed. The mixing meant there was no possible means to track the exact fate (export, animal feed or crushing) of the Roundup Ready cotton seed. Sale of whole seed to the domestic market as animal feed is in contravention of Australia’s GMAC’s advice. The seed was not packaged and secured, therefore seed escape was possible.

This is the current list for Australia:

---

Australia - 15 kgs of Monsanto's GM cotton seed was spilled during transport >> more

---

Australia - an unapproved variety of GM cotton was found in GM Roundup Ready cotton seed >> more

---

Australia - contaminated oilseed rape seed imported from US >> more

---

Australia - unapproved GM cotton (grown in a field trial) was mixed with non-GM and approved varieties of GM cotton after harvest >> more

---

Australia - wheat exports bound for Columbia contaminated with GM maize >> more

---

Australia – contamination of oilseed rape exports by unapproved GM variety >> more

---

Australia – farmer’s conventional oilseed rape crop contaminated with GM >> more

---

Australia – first field resistance to Bt toxins recorded >> more

---

Australia – oilseed rape trials contaminated with GM >> more

---

The Australian Government Office of the Gene Technology Regulator can be found here.

Make the biotech industry part of the Australian federal election debate in 2010

With little likelihood of the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council handing on its final report of the Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy before the federal election this year, I imagine that the biotech industry in Australia is feeling confident that it will not come under real scrutiny during the election campaign.

Because this is an important issue which already sees genetically modified foods (such as certain potato varieties) capable of being sold to the general public without any requirement that it be labelled such, it is important that all candidates standing for a federal seat in 2010 be asked to state their position on the labelling of genetically modified of produce/products/ingredients/foods and the makeup of any future review committee.

How members of the new parliament view issues surrounding genetic modification will be reflected in how they vote on any proposed changes to food labelling law. The forthcoming election campaign is one more chance for Australian consumers to get their own points of view across to those wishing to represent them.

This is what the ANZFRC review website has to say about the one member of the Independent Review Panel with a glaring conflict of interest as Executive Director of the Australian Oilseeds Federation briefed to promote GM technology:

Nicholas Clive Goddard Mr Nick Goddard is a communications and marketing professional with over 25 years experience in the food industry. He has solid track record in bringing new and innovative food products to market, and in doing so has developed a good understanding of the challenges and opportunities the existing food labelling laws present to both businesses and consumers. Mr. Goddard has a Bachelor of Commerce and an MBA, and brings a pragmatic business and solutions oriented approach to the Panel. He is currently Executive Director of an agri-food industry association.
(Conflict of Interest declaration (PDF 190 KB))



















The final report of the Review Committee will be provided to the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council in December 2010 and to COAG in early 2011.
The review process began in late 2009.

Monsanto plays the smart@rse

I got the steely eye this month and a pointed reference to the need for 'somebody' to do a post on Monsanto to keep readers up to date and "Mr. Monsanto" on his/her toes - so here goes.

Some folk just can't help themselves - they have to try to go that one step too far.

This is Monsanto blogging last Tuesday mocking concerns about the environmental impact of GM seed varieties known as Roundup Ready; "It's a bird, it's a plane, no, it's SUPERWEED!"....And finally, what the heck is a superweed? Seriously, this term gets thrown around a lot, primarily in non-agriculture venues. I imagine pigweed standing tall with a red cape, refusing to die. Glyphosate may no longer be able to kill these weeds, but that by itself doesn't make them "superweeds." There was a time when glyphosate wasn't around, and guess what? These weeds existed....

The first resistant weed –horseweed – was discovered in Delaware in 2000. But, I guess the mainstream media has decided weed resistance is now in vogue."

Yep, that's right! It's perfectly fine that wild weeds are developing spontaneous genetic responses to Roundup and other glyphosate products used as part of genetically modified grain and cotton agriculture.

Something which was pointed out in late 2009 in a PNAS article concerning the dicot weed Palmer's Pigweed; "This occurrence of gene amplification as an herbicide resistance mechanism in a naturally occurring weed population is particularly significant because it could threaten the sustainable use of glyphosate-resistant crop technology."

Nothing we at Monsanto need to worry about! After all there are at least 18 glyphosate resistant varieties of weed globally, but other herbicide manufacturers are having similar problems so ours doesn't really count.

And even though the media has been reporting on 'superweeds' since news first got out between 1987 and 1996 we'll just pooh pooh all this attention, reset that ticking clock to 2000, ignore the fact that the we knew about the potential for herbicide resistance long before putting GM seed on the market, that our patented meddling has created almost one new resistant variety each year and pretend it's really all the farmer's fault anyway.

Oh, well done Monsanto!

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Monsanto's failures come as no surprise

Potential for yield declines in GM soybean has already been recorded, along herbicide resistant weeds, so it should really come as no surprise to find that yet another Monsanto genetically modified seed variety is not living up to its advertising hype:

A genetically modified cotton produced by Monsanto is failing to control pests in four Indian states, the company said last week.
The survival of the pink bollworm in Monsanto's Bollgard brand cotton was detected in four of the nine Indian states where the cotton is grown.
A spokesman for the Creve Coeur-based company said it is taking the matter "very seriously" and will continue to monitor the situation with the help of a team of Indian-based experts. The detection has been reported to the Indian Genetic Engineering Committee, the company said.
The cotton is engineered to resist the pink bollworm, a pest that can ruin crops. However, testing was conducted to assess resistance to Cry1Ac, the Bt protein in the crop, and insects were found to be surviving it.
The company said Friday that the resistance could be occurring because the required refuge areas were not planted by farmers and some may have used unapproved Bt cotton seed.
Recently, India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, said the country should be more cautious in adopting genetically modified crops.

* This post is part of the North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Monsanto's greed exceeds itself

Anyone who has been following the fortunes of biotech companies associated with genetically modified seed will recall Monsanto & Co's oft repeated claim that it's really in the business of feeding the world and not the simple pursuit of profit.

Once more in 2010 this monopolisitic multinational's actions give lie to the PR spin, as it is discovered trying to assert royalty rights over Cefetra's imported animal feed product made from GMO Roundup-ready soybean and accusing this company and others of infringing its patent.
The ruling mentioned below appears to be an interim opinion with the court's final ruling expected sometime later in the year.

The owner of a patented strain of herbicide-resistant soy can't collect royalties on soy meal imported from Argentina and used for animal feed, a European Court of Justice adviser ruled.
Though the soy meal contains residue of Monsanto's patented gene, it's no longer being used for its patented purpose of resisting pesticides.
Monsanto developed glyphosate, a broad-spectrum pesticide marketed under the name Roundup, along with Roundup-ready crops, which are genetically engineered to resist glyphosate.
Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi, in response to a request for clarification from a Dutch court, advised the high court that a European Union biotech directive distinguishes between simple discovery and invention of genetic code.
DNA that simply exists isn't patentable under the EU directive, Mengozzi stated, because this would allow an "unspecified number of derivative products" to fall under control of the patent-holder. For a patent to be enforceable, the genetic information must be "performing the functions described in the patent," Mengozzi said.
The ruling shot down Monsanto's demand for royalties from Dutch importers of genetically modified soybean meal. Although the soy meal, used for animal feed, contains "residue" of the Roundup-ready gene, after harvest the code is no longer active in its purpose of resisting the pesticide, Mengozzi ruled.

European Court of Justice full interim opinion transcript here.

Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops On Pesiticide Use

The opening paragraphs of a November 2009 report commissioned by The Organic Center Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops On Pesiticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years:

This report explores the impact of the adoption of genetically engineered (GE) corn, soybean, and cotton on pesticide use in the United States, drawing principally on data from the United States Department of Agriculture. The most striking finding is that GE crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. over the fi rst 13 years of commercial use of GE crops (1996-2008).

This dramatic increase in the volume of herbicides applied swamps the decrease in insecticide use attributable to GE corn and cotton, making the overall chemical footprint of today's GE crops decidedly negative. The report identifies, and discusses in detail, the primary cause of the increase -- the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds.

The steep rise in the pounds of herbicides applied with respect to most GE crop acres is not news to farmers. Weed control is now widely acknowledged as a serious management problem within GE cropping systems. Farmers and weed scientists across the heartland and cotton belt are now struggling to devise affordable and effective strategies to deal with the resistant weeds emerging in the wake of herbicide-tolerant crops.

But skyrocketing herbicide use is news to the public at large, which still harbors the illusion, fed by misleading industry claims and advertising, that biotechnology crops are reducing pesticide use. Such a claim was valid for the first few years of commercial use of GE corn, soybeans, and cotton. But, as this report shows, it is no longer.

An accurate assessment of the performance of GE crops on pesticide use is important for reasons other than correcting the excesses of industry advertising. It is also about the future direction of agriculture, research, and regulatory policy.

PDF full report download

Monsanto under the media spotlight once again

Click on image to enlarge

Monsanto and Co is under the media spotlight once more at US ABC News in a four-page article AP IMPACT: Monsanto Seed Business Role Revealed which looks at how this biotech company is determined to create a global seed monopoly.

Something Australian farmers and consumers should consider carefully, given government's almost uncritical acceptance of gene technology, the very narrow profit margins of many family farms and those comfortable margins jealously defended by the dominant retail grocery companies.

"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight."

Monsanto is rather upset about the claims made in this and other similar articles and, as usual, has gone into print itself with a quick muddy of the waters over at its own blog Beyond The Rows.

I'm sure that everyone is relieved to know that, according to its corporate blogger Mica, the biotech giant really doesn't control 90 per cent of seed genetics because; we licensed the technology to hundreds of seed companies, including our major competitors, and no one has offered a better product to these seed companies or to growers.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Monsanto is another word for elitist ethnocentrism

This is Monsanto & Co. on Twitter last week:

MonsantoCo
Even after supplying those who need it this year, the US be able to save 10% of this year's corn harvest for the future. #ThankaFarmer about 5 hours ago from Twuffer

This is what the media reported in the five days before Monsanto made that boast:

• It's estimated one-sixth of the global population, about one billion people, are malnourished and going hungry every day. And there are real fears that number will be much bigger by 2050, when the world's population is projected to pass nine billion.
• In Guatemala, over 400,000 families are in desperate need of food due to a disastrous drought and crop failure. Guatemala’s President Alvaro Colom has declared a national state of calamity due to extreme food shortages. Hardest hit are young children and pregnant women, who are vulnerable to malnutrition and need sufficient nourishment to grow and fight off disease.
• The United Nations children's fund (UNICEF) has urged for more action to be taken in southern Sudan to stop severe food shortage in parts of that region. UNICEF's Deputy Executive Director Hilde F. Johnson who visited in the vast region said now is the time to act. "Now is the time to act. Everybody needs to do their best to stop this humanitarian emergency, which is already affecting 1.5 million people across southern Sudan," said Johnson in a statement received here Friday.
• The number of U.S. households unable to put adequate food on the table increased sharply during the latest recession, reaching the highest level recorded since USDA began monitoring household food security in 1995. Proportionally, increases in food insecurity were greatest in groups that were historically less vulnerable to food insecurity.

I don't know what is more confronting - Monsanto's corporate elitism when it comes to American society, its insular ethnocentricity (based as it is within a global super power which is also one of the leading cereal-growing nations) or its determination to treat its audience like dumb idiots. No wonder this multinational appears to be losing market share.

More on Monsanto:
Monsanto Pulls GM Corn Amid Food Safety Concerns,Scoop, 17 November 2009
Monsanto faces 'distrust' in seed battle, Delaware Online, 15 November 2009

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

The lights weren’t on, but Monsanto was at home

MADGE Australia and friends went to see Monsanto and came away with a story to tell:

Monsanto turned out the lights yesterday after the ladies of MADGE Australia, Cropwatch, and Gene Ethics arrived to deliver bags of GM canola roadside weeds.

Agri-chemical giant Monsanto is the patent holder of the GM Roundup Ready canola crop recently planted in Australia. Bob Phelps of Gene Ethics also attended.

After obligatory photos in the Monsanto lobby, the ladies went to the door. It was locked. Then the Monsanto lights went out.

MADGE Australia's Madeleine Love explained the visit.

"The GM weeds were Monsanto's property, and they were on our roadsides. We'd prefer not to be cleaning up, but we didn't want to leave them there to contaminate GM free crops."

"They were physically removed from beside farmer Gai Marshall's GM free canola crop near Berrigan, NSW. There are many more, further up the road."

"Monsanto was told about their GM weeds, but they didn't come and clean them up.

Monsanto has a record of suing farmers who accidentally have these GM plants on their property [Percy Schmeiser]."

"We don't know anyone in Australia who would want GM weeds, so we were returning them to their owners. Strangely, Monsanto didn't seem to want them either."

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Flacco tells Cardinal George Pell a thing or two **

Talking an amble down one digital pathway I came across this in ABC National Radio's archives for the Science Show:

"Flacco: Now, it has come to my attention that Archbishop George Pell has threatened to excommunicate Catholic MPs if they support therapeutic cloning, and this has made me wonder how the church stands on the subject of cloned foods, for it is no secret that no matter what your faith (or lack of it), you've been eating cloned fruit all your life. Bananas, oranges, even Eve's apple was a clone, not to mention giant strawberries. You see, these foods have been modified over 6,000-odd years of agriculture.

So would this mean that Catholic vegetarians could be excommunicated for eating therapeutically cloned fruit? Basically I think that George Pell is a therapeutically cloned fruit. And perhaps there is more behind this anti-cloning crusade, for it is only hunters and gatherers who eat anything close to food in its original form, and without foods being genetically modified, well, the planet could only support a few odd million human inhabitants.

So perhaps it is George's plan to rid the planet of all non-Catholics and a few excommunicated upstarts, therefore leaving the Earth cleared for Pell and his cronies as opposed to us clonies. So to counter this and prevent further bad puns like that I suggest the unreligious must stand up for the clones, we must build an ark to house all our cloned flora and fauna and then lead them one by one onto this ark to be flung to a new planet to self-replicate in peace.

And it occurs to me that perhaps God himself is the original therapeutic clone; he lives alone, no need for a relationship, made us all in his image. We are all clones of God! How about that, George! If you yourself are a therapeutic clone of God, then perhaps you will have to excommunicate yourself. Not such a bad thing really, for if the Catholic Church would stop all this excommunicating it could then feel free to indulge in its opposite. And the opposite of 'excommunicate' is to communicate. Amen.

Robyn Williams: And it starts this week of course. Monsignor Flacco being typically inconvenient and annoying."

** This post counts as my contribution to North Coast Voices efforts to keep Monsanto & Co.'s blog monitor in full-time employment. Yup, I'm laffing at you Mista Missie Mons!

In 2007 Monsanto spent US$4M+ on lobbying, in 2008 it spent US$8M+, while in 2009....

Graph U.S. Agricultural sector lobbying expenditure 2009

Monsanto & Co. continues to expand its dominance of the world seed and genetically modified food additive markets with certain of its corporate expenses rising each year this century.

In 2006 this biotech multinational spent over US$3 million on lobbying governments and government agencies. By 2008 it was spending over US$8 million. In 2009 so far Monsanto & Co has spent over US$6 million on similar activities.

It is only one of 342 agricultural sector lobbyists in the United States listed by Open Secrets but is by far the biggest spender this year.

The U.S. agricultural lobby sector in 2009 is worth $25,721,913, has made over $2 million in campaign contributions for the American 2010 election cycle to date and Monsanto is in the top five donation contributors.

In February of this year Monsanto approached the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking a ruling that stearidonic (SDA) omega-3 soybean oil was generally recognised as safe.

Monsanto intends to market SDA soybean oil as a food ingredient in the United States in a variety of food products including baked goods and baking mixes, breakfast cereals and grains, cheeses, dairy product analogs, fats and oils, fish products, frozen dairy desserts and mixes, grain products and pastas, gravies and sauces, meat products, milk products, nuts and nut products, poultry products, processed fruit juices, processed vegetable products, puddings and fillings, snack foods, soft candy, and soups and soup mixes. SDA soybean oil will be added to foods at levels that provide 375 mg SDA/serving.

Now it is reported that Monsanto is positioning itself to release soy-based GMO omega-3 oil on the market sometime after 2010 and according to a Monsanto media release the FDA has announced this month that genetically modified omega-3 oil is safe to use (however the FDA makes it plain that it has solely relied on Monsanto's own assessment).

Are we getting close to quod erat demonstrandum?

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Monsanto: St. Lois we have a problem

Despite its market dominance Monsanto & Co. is continuing to show financial loss according to the St. Lois Business Journal this month:

Monsanto Co. reported Wednesday a wider fourth-quarter loss on charges from recent layoffs and the sale of its sunflower operations. Monsanto lost $233 million in the quarter ended Aug. 31, compared with a loss of $172 million a year earlier. Results reflected restructuring charges that included the costs of staff reductions, streamlining brands, and office and facility consolidations. Monsanto recently cut 1,800 jobs, including 300 in St. Louis.

Monsanto's woes do not stop there however, because there is growing unease among government regulators around the world who suspect that anti-competitive practices abound in the global seed industry, not least in the multinational's home country America.

Here are the opening paragraphs of 23 October 2009 of The American Antitrust Institute white paper discussing the issue Transgenic Seed Platforms:
Competition Between a Rock and a Hard Place?:

With the widespread adoption by farmers of corn, cotton, and soybean seed containing transgenic technology, the U.S. seed industry has changed rapidly in the past twenty years. The largest changes include the creation of strongholds of patented technology and the gradual elimination of the numerous regional independent seed companies through consolidation. Resulting increases in concentration in affected markets has been driven largely by the industry’s dominant firm, Monsanto.

A threshold question to consider is whether Monsanto has exercised its market power to foreclose rivals from market access, harming competition and thereby slowing the pace of innovation and adversely affecting prices, quality, and choice for farmers and consumers of seed products. If the answer to this question is yes, remedying the intractable competitive situation that prevails in the transgenic seed industry may require antitrust enforcement, legislative relief, or both. The problem highlights both the importance of competition policy and the security and diversity of a key agricultural sector.

White Paper PDF download here.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

What's in that icecream you are eating?

What's in that icream you are eating that wasn't there in your grandmother's day?

In Australia the Federal Government has in total eight pages listing foods using gene technology and approved for sale under the Food Standards Australian New Zealand Act 1991.

Including nine versions of New Leaf potato, canola seed/oil/flour/syrup, corn/flour/oil/syrup/food grade ethanol, cotton oils/cottonseed oils, glucose made from fungus, soy foods/oil/protein meal, pectin, baker's yeast/yeast, icestructuring protein made from fish, food processing enzyme made from a bacteria, and sugar beet.

Genetically modified organisms can now form part of the production process or ingredients in foods - from takeaway foods like fish & chips/meat pies, frozen convenience food such as lasagna/pizza, to staples like bread through to traditional desserts that your grandmother used to make.

GM products approved as food, food additives and processing aids (PDF 79 KB)
GM products approved as therapeutics (PDF 19 KB)
GM products approved as pesticides or veterinary medicines (PDF 9 KB)

List of applications and licences for Dealings involving Intentional Release (DIR) of GMOs into the environment on behalf of CSIRO, BSES Ltd, Florigene P/L, Dept of Primary Industry (Vic), Bayer Crop Science P/L, Monsanto Australia Ltd, Queensland UT, University of Queensland, University of Adelaide, Hexima Ltd, Dept. of Primary Industries & Fisheries (Qld), Imugene Ltd, Dow AgroSciences Australia P/L, Syngenta Seeds P/L, Dept of Primary Industries, Aventis CropScience P/L.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Photo from Google Images

First Dog On The Moon takes the mickey out of Monsanto with Canolabees

First Dog On The Moon cartoon from Crikey
5 October 2009
Click on image to enlarge

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Dear Mr. MeadowLea, about those seeds...........

I have noticed a MeadowLea margarine advertisement screening on television for the past few weeks which focuses on the goodness found in the seeds used to make its spread.

On the MeadowLea website it claims:

Farmers grow our canola & sunflower seeds
MeadowLea spreads are made from over 70,000 natural seeds. The canola seeds that go into our MeadowLea spreads are Non-Genetically Modified. Our canola seeds are sourced locally from Australian Seed growers, whilst the sunflower seeds are sourced from the warm climate of South America.

Now I do not doubt that at this moment MeadowLea intends to honour this online claim.

However, I did not catch this non-GM pledge repeated in the particular television ad I saw.
Neither have I seen this exact claim on MeadowLea packaging.

What is claimed on the MeadowLea tubs is that the Canola Oil used is non-genetically modified. Something that can be safely stated in Australia, as refined oil made from GM seed does not have to be so identified on a food label because it is not considered to have identifiable genetically modified plant DNA remaining.

There appears to be a long silence on the nature of the sunflower seed used in the manufacture of the margarine.
No mention is made of the fact that in the warm climate of South America mentioned by Goodman Fielder there have been genetically modified sunflower seed field trials underway since 2007 and, although there isn't a commercial quantity available yet the absence of a non-GM claim for this ingredient leaves the company with a lot of wriggle room should it chose to source from GM sunflower in the future.

So Mr. MeadowLea, Original, Salt Reduced, Light, Extra Light, Canola, Lactose Free - I think I'll give all margarine a miss for now.

If you genuinely want your products to be viewed as special a rethink of your labelling and advertising strategy might be advisable.
This is not the time for commercial ambiguity.

Is nature having the last laugh on Monsanto & Co?

Photograph of Palmer Pigweed from Syngenta blog

This U.S. report from Memphis Online last Sunday:

All across the Mid-South, hundreds of thousands of acres of cotton and soybean fields have been infested with a rapacious, fast-growing weed that's become resistant to the main herbicide on which farmers have relied for more than a decade.

Palmer pigweed, often called "careless weed" by field hands, often is surviving and even thriving despite treatments with the chemical glyphosate -- most commonly sold under the trade name Roundup.

In Arkansas alone, the weed has invaded some 750,000 acres of crops, including half the 250,000 acres of cotton. In Tennessee, nearly 500,000 acres have some degree of infestation, with the counties bordering the Mississippi River hardest hit.

The infestation is cutting farmers' cotton yields by up to one-third and in some cases doubling or tripling their weed-control costs.

The invasive noxious weed Amaranthus palmeri which is doing all that damage in America is also found in Australia and has other cousins here, including the noxious weed Amaranthus blitoides (prostrate pigweed).

Pigweed is not the only pest which has become resistant to glycines and the world-wide list includes a number of other pasture or crop weed species which are found in this country.

The biotechnology industry's boast used to be that the glycine derivative Glyphosate or RoundUp was effective in suppressing 76 out of 78 of the world's worst cropping weeds. This boast appears to be a pale shadow of its former self.

Which leads to the inevitable question - just how long will Australian farmers have before the touted 'benefits' of GM crops disappear into thin air?