Monday, December 20, 2010

MONSANTO'S GM ROUND-UP-READY SOY POISONS & KILLS HUMANS, ANIMALS, THE ENVIRONMENT & THE ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM..



The above photograph shows a baby with sores caused by agrochemicals spraying in a GM soy-producing region of Paraguay ( source: GM WATCH )

You people. We thought you folks had taken everything you
could. You took our land, you took our homes. You stole our
pottery and our songs and our blankets and our designs. You
took our language and, in some places, you even took our
children. You snatched at our religion and at our women. You
destroyed our history and now, now it seems you come to suck
the marrow from our bones.


Jeanette Armstrong, an indigenous woman from Canada at a meeting on the Human Genome Diversity Projecti

"The cultivation of GM RR soy endangers human and animal health, increases herbicide use, damages the environment, reduces biodiversity, and has negative impacts on rural populations. The monopolistic control by agribusiness companies over GM RR soy technology and production endangers markets, compromises the economic viability of farming, and threatens food security."

In Argentina and Paraguay, doctors and residents living in GM soy producing areas have reported serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers. Scientific studies collected in the new report confirm links between exposure to glyphosate and premature births, miscarriages, cancer, and damage to DNA and reproductive organ cells.

Residents have also reported environmental damage from glyphosate, including damage to food crops and streams strewn with dead fish. These accounts are backed by studies in the report that show glyphosate is toxic to the environment.


http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12503-sustainable-responsible-gm-soy-with-glyphosate-and-the-rtrs

Monsanto and the agro-industrial multinationals ( Cargill, ADM,Bunge, etc.)are not the only criminals responsible for this GENOCIDE and Crime against Humanity and Nature. The GM soya being produced in Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil and in other south american countries is exported to the EU and to other affluent countries to feed cattle and other livestock. Thus, all those who eat meat (beef, pork, chicken, and other livestock) and their produce ( milk, cheese, eggs, etc.) fed with GM soya, GM maize and other GM crops, are directly supporting this genocidal industry/system - through ignorance or worse through indifference - and are thus equally responsible for the resulting socio-economic, health and enviromental GENOCIDE of GM soya production...

The solution

" A chain is only as strong as its weakest link..."

The weakest link in the GMO "chain" is the purchasing choice & power of the consumer.

If european & american consumers stopped buying and eating livestock ( and their produce) fed with GM soya/maize, then the whole industry/system would collapse...

Peaceful, non-violent, non-cooperation with the system...

Food for thought next time you buy/eat your hamburger, milk, pork chops, chicken or eggs...

note: Labelling of animals - and their produce - fed with GMO's is not legally required in both the US and in the EU. Thus, consumers do not realize that each time they purchase and consume meat ( beef, chicken, pork and their produce) fed with GMO's, they are directly supporting this genocidal industry/system.

Please watch the following documentaries for an overview of the health, environmental and socio-economic GENOCIDE of GM soy cultivation in South America:

Killing Fields

the battle to feed factory farms

A hidden chain of destruction stretches from the factory farms in Europe to the forests of South America - where huge soy plantations, grown to feed chickens, cows and pigs in Europe, are wiping out wildlife and making climate change worse.

To make way for soy plantations, thousands of people are being forced from their land. Indigenous people are being evicted and forests are being cleared.

This ground breaking film investigates the impacts of growing soy in South America and shows how small scale farming that is good for people and the environment is losing out to big business of pesticides – poisoning rural communities, water sources and nature.

Meanwhile in Europe small scale farming that is good for people and the environment is losing out to big business.

This ground breaking film investigates the impacts of growing soy in South America to feed factory farms in Europe. Our campaign gives people unwittingly caught up in this damaging chain hope that they can break out of it.


Link to download/view documentary:

http://www.feedingfactoryfarms.org/index.php?id=3

Also watch following BBC documentary on the same subject:

Paraguay’s painful harvest :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3778190655853164866#

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/4od#3073077


New scientific report on the health hazards and the socio-economic and environmental consequences of GM Round Up Ready Soya

A group of international scientists have released a report detailing health and environmental hazards from the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready soy and the use of glyphosate (Roundup®) herbicide.

The report, GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?,[1] highlights new research by Argentine government scientist, Professor Andrés Carrasco,[2] which found that glyphosate causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying.

The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy,” said Carrasco.

Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires Medical School and lead researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), Argentina, is a co-author of the new report. The report is released with testimonies of Argentine villagers whose lives have been radically disrupted by the cultivation of GM soy.[3]

In Argentina and Paraguay, doctors and residents living in GM soy producing areas have reported serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers. Scientific studies collected in the new report confirm links between exposure to glyphosate and premature births, miscarriages, cancer, and damage to DNA and reproductive organ cells.

Carrasco said people living in soy-producing areas of Argentina began reporting problems in 2002, two years after the first big harvests of GM Roundup Ready soy. He said, "I suspect the toxicity classification of glyphosate is too low ... in some cases this can be a powerful poison."

Residents have also reported environmental damage from glyphosate, including damage to food crops and streams strewn with dead fish. These accounts are backed by studies in the report that show glyphosate is toxic to the environment.

Scientists and others who speak out against Argentina’s GM soy agricultural model report censorship and harassment. In August 2010 Amnesty International called for an investigation into a violent attack by an organized mob on an audience assembled to hear Carrasco talk about his research in the agricultural town of La Leonesa.

“Responsible” soy?

GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? challenges commercial claims that GM soy cultivation is sustainable and that the glyphosate herbicide it is sprayed with is safe. In 2011 the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), a multi-stakeholder forum on sustainable soy production, will launch a voluntary label for “responsible” soy that will reassure ethically minded traders and consumers that the soy was produced with consideration for people and the environment.[4] It will label GM soy sprayed with glyphosate as responsible.[5]

RTRS members include multinational companies such as ADM, Bunge, Cargill, Monsanto, Syngenta, Shell, and BP, and NGOs such as WWF and Solidaridad.

Claire Robinson of GMWatch, a group that campaigns against GM foods and crops, said, “It is a cruel farce to call the GM soy with glyphosate farming model sustainable and responsible.

“The RTRS criteria are so weak that they don’t protect people from the known health hazards of GM soy and glyphosate shown in the new report.[6][7]

“The RTRS also ignores serious social problems caused by GM soy monocultures. Livelihoods and food security have been lost as land that used to grow food for people to eat is given over to toxic GM soy monocultures.

“Over 200 civil society organizations have condemned the RTRS criteria as corporate greenwash.[8] It’s time for responsible members of the RTRS to abandon this discredited body.”

Europe imports around 38 million tons of soy per year, which mostly goes into animal feed.[9] Food products from GM-fed animals do not have to carry a GM label.

The maximum glyphosate residue limit allowed in soy in the EU is 20 mg/kg. Carrasco found malformations in embryos injected with 2.03 mg/kg glyphosate, nearly 10 times lower.[10] Soybeans have been found to contain glyphosate residues at levels up to 17mg/kg.[11]

The summary & full report can be downloaded at the following link:

http://www.gmwatch.eu/images/pdf/gm_sum_eng_v12.pdf

http://www.gmwatch.eu/images/pdf/gmsoy_sust_respons_full_eng_v14.pdf

About the authors and publishers of GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?

This report was compiled by an international coalition of scientists who hold the view that the complete body of evidence on GM soy and glyphosate herbicide should be made accessible to everyone – government, industry, the media, and the public. The

scientists and their contact details are as follows:

Michael Antoniou Michael Antoniou is reader in molecular genetics and head, Nuclear Biology Group, King’s College London School of Medicine, London, UK. Mobile +44 7852 979 548. +44 20 7188 3708. Skype: michaelantoniou. Email: michael.antoniou@genetics.kcl.ac.uk

Paulo Brack is professor, Institute of Biosciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil; and member, CTNBio (National Technical Commission on Biosafety), Brazil. +55 51 9142 3220. Email: paulo.brack@ufrgs.br

Andrés Carrasco is professor and director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires Medical School, Argentina; and lead researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), Argentina. Mobile +54 9 11 6826 2788. +54 11 5950 9500 ext 2216. Email: acarrasco@fmed.uba.ar
John Fagan founded one of the first GMO testing and certification companies. He co-founded Earth Open Source, which uses open source collaboration to advance environmentally sustainable food production. Earlier, he conducted cancer research at the US National Institutes of Health. He holds a PhD in biochemistry and molecular and cell biology from Cornell University. Mobile +1 312 351 2001. +44 20 3286 7156. Email: jfagan@earthopensource.org

Mohamed Ezz El-Din Mostafa Habib is professor and former director, Institute of Biology, UNICAMP, São Paulo, Brazil, and provost for extension and community affairs, UNICAMP. He is an internationally recognized expert on ecology, entomology, agricultural pests, environmental education, sustainability, biological control, and agroecology. +55 19 3521 4712. Email: habib@unicamp.br

Paulo Yoshio Kageyama is professor, department of forest sciences, University of São Paulo, Brazil; a Fellow of the National Council of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) of the ministry of science and technology, Brazil; and former director, National Programme for Biodiversity Conservation, ministry of the environment, Brazil. +55 19 2105 8642. Email: kageyama@esalq.usp.br

Carlo Leifert is professor of ecological agriculture at the School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AFRD), Newcastle University, UK; and director of the Stockbridge Technology Centre Ltd (STC), UK, a non-profit company providing R&D support for the UK horticultural industry. +44 1661 830222. Email: c.leifert@ncl.ac.uk

Rubens Onofre Nodari is professor, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil; former manager of plant genetic resources, ministry of environment, Brazil; and a Fellow of the National Council of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) of the ministry of science and technology, Brazil. +55 48 3721 5332. Skype: rnodari. Email: nodari@cca.ufsc.br

Walter A. Pengue is professor of agriculture and ecology, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina; and scientific member, IPSRM International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management, UNEP, United Nations. Mobile +54 911 3688 2549. +54 11 4469 7500 ext 7235. Skype: wapengue. Email: walter.pengue@speedy.com.ar

OTHER DOCUMENTED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON THE NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS OF GM SOY ON BOTH HUMANS AND ANIMALS

GM-Soy: Destroy the Earth and Humans for Profit

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 by: Dr. Gregory Damato, Ph.D., citizen journalist

http://www.naturalnews.com/026334_soy_Roundup_GMO.html

(NaturalNews) Genetically modified (GM) soy accounts for 91 percent of soybeans planted in the US and is rapidly growing throughout the world [1]. The dangerous biotech created science behind the introduction of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) is rapidly mounting and can no longer be ignored by scientists or the public. The biotech propaganda of increasing crop yield and ending world hunger have been proven false, and attempts to skew the simple fact that the sole reasoning for the mass introduction of untested, toxic and dangerous GMOs into our plants, soil, animals and genes is to increase profits at any expense for the large multinational biotech companies.

Transgenic or GM soy is created by haphazardly blasting a gene into the soybean that allows the bean to be resistant to the cytotoxic effects of Roundup (glyphosate). Farmers are able to dose their entire soybean fields with glyphosate and only kill the weeds. But, wouldn't it make sense that if something kills anything (including weeds) it also would be killing human cells? Also, what health effects are evident from consuming soybeans which have been genetically altered with a promoter virus to ensure the gene slips past the immune system of the plant?

Monsanto created Roundup in the 1970's to kill weeds and has since catapulted this product to be the world's number one selling herbicide. Before the patent on Roundup was set to expire in 2000, Monsanto needed a surefire way to keep the profits of Roundup from bottoming out. Monsanto quickly began purchasing the majority of the world's seed companies while simultaneously creating GMOs that farmers needed to sign contractual agreements to only use Roundup. Subsequently, revenue from Roundup never dropped and in fact topped more than $4 billion in 2008, up 59% from 2007 [2].

GM-soy is estimated to be present in up to 70% of all food products found in US supermarkets, including cereals, breads, soymilk, pasta and most meat (as animals are fed GM-soy feed). Although Monsanto has consistently relied on industry-funded data to declare the safety of GM-soy and glyphosate, objective research published in peer-reviewed journals tells another story.

Toxicity of Glyphosate

A recently published study by Italian researchers [3] examined the toxicity of four popular glyphosate based herbicide formulations on human placental cells, kidney cells, embryonic cells and neonate umbilical cord cells and surprisingly found total cell death of each of these cells within 24 hours. The researchers reported several mechanisms by which the herbicides caused the cells to die including: cell membrane rupture and damage, mitochondrial damage and cell asphyxia. Following these findings, the researchers tested G, AMPA and POEA by themselves and concluded that, "It is very clear that if G, POEA, or AMPA has a small toxic effect on embryonic cells alone at low levels, the combination of two of them at the same final concentration is significantly deleterious".

Although previous researchers have proposed that the supposed "inert ingredients" alter the role of cell membrane disruptors in fish, amphibians, microorganisms [4] and plants [5], independent of G, this study is the first of its kind to report similar findings in human cells. The researchers concluded that, "the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R [Roundup] formulation-treated crops" which are pervasive in GM-soya.

Furthermore, a recent study presently being prepared for publication by embryologists and biologists in Argentina found that glyphosate induced malformations in amphibian embryos [6]. Reduced head size, genetic alterations in the central nervous system, an increase in the death of cells that help form the skull, and deformed cartilage were effects that were repeatedly found in the laboratory experiments, said lead researcher, Carrasco. Carrasco explained that in the first phase of the experiment, amphibian embryos were submerged in a solution of herbicide diluted in water in a proportion that was 1,500 times weaker than that used today on genetically modified soybeans. The embryos subsequently suffered head deformations. In the second stage, embryonic cells were injected with glyphosate diluted with water, alone. The deleterious impact was multiplied, showing that the active ingredient accounts for the toxicity, rather than the additives, Carrasco said.

"One should be able to suppose, with certainty, that the same thing that happens to amphibian embryos can happen to humans," said Carrasco, whose team of specialists in biology, biochemistry and genetics has been working on the study for 15 months. The researchers concluded that, "It is clear that glyphosate is not innocuous and that it does not degrade or break down, but accumulates in cells".

Dangers of GM-Soy

In addition to the toxicity of glyphosate, several animal studies have found several health issues directly related to the consumption of GM-soybean. Rabbits fed GM-soy were found to have altered enzymatic activity in their livers as well as a higher metabolic activity [7]. Microscopic analyses of the livers of mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans revealed altered gene expression and structural and functional changes [8]. Much of these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to non-GM soy, indicating that GM soy was the culprit.

Molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, Ph.D., described that the findings "are not random and must reflect some 'insult' on the liver by the GM soy." Antoniou, who does human gene therapy research in King's College London, said that although the long-term consequences of the GM soy diet are not known, it "could lead to liver damage and consequently general toxemia" [9].

A study presented in December of 2005 by Dr. Ermakova found that rats fed a GM-soy flour diet had 56 percent of their offspring die at birth compared to only 8 percent in the control group [10]. Ermakova (2005) also reported that, "From the data it is evident, that 36% of the pups from the GM soya group weighed less than 20 g, in comparison with the 6% in the positive control group, and with the 6.7% found in the traditional soya supplemented diet group. Study of pups' organs mass showed that the organs of small pups from GM group were tiny in comparison with the same of other groups except the brain mass. This fact indicated that the pups from the GM group were the same age as others, but changes were occurred with the development of internal organs" [10]. Furthermore, Ermakova found that the male rats who were fed GM soy had their testicles change color from normal pink to dark blue.

Researchers also found that the cells in the pancreatic cells of mice fed Roundup Ready soy had profound changes and produced significantly less digestive enzymes [11]. Furthermore, mice fed GM soy were found to have altered young sperm [12] and even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA [13]. Clearly, GMOs are either an arrogant blend of controlling life through food or an insidious plot for population control.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/026334_soy_Roundup_GMO.html#ixzz1Bn6TUwsx

GM SOY LINKED TO STERILITY, INFANT MORTALITY IN HAMSTERS

By Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director, Institute of Responsible Technology

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html

"This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths—a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.

The study, jointly conducted by Surov's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)—so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an email.

He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproduction rate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8 litters, totally 140 animals.

Surov told The Voice of Russia,

"Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs' growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly."
He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.

Surov said "The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile."

The published paper will also include measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the team can raise sufficient funds, they will also analyze hormone levels in collected blood samples.

Hair Growing in the Mouth

Earlier this year, Surov co-authored a paper in Doklady Biological Sciences showing that in rare instances, hair grows inside recessed pouches in the mouths of hamsters.

"Some of these pouches contained single hairs; others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairs reaching as high as the chewing surface of the teeth. Sometimes, the tooth row was surrounded with a regular brush of hair bundles on both sides. The hairs grew vertically and had sharp ends, often covered with lumps of a mucous."

At the conclusion of the study, the authors surmise that such an astounding defect may be due to the diet of hamsters raised in the laboratory. They write, "This pathology may be exacerbated by elements of the food that are absent in natural food, such as genetically modified (GM) ingredients (GM soybean or maize meal) or contaminants (pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals, etc.)." Indeed, the number of hairy mouthed hamsters was much higher among the third generation of GM soy fed animals than anywhere Surov had seen before.

Preliminary, but Ominous

Surov warns against jumping to early conclusions. He said, "It is quite possible that the GMO does not cause these effects by itself." Surov wants to make the analysis of the feed components a priority, to discover just what is causing the effect and how.

In addition to the GMOs, it could be contaminants, he said, or higher herbicide residues, such as Roundup. There is in fact much higher levels of Roundup on these beans; they're called "Roundup Ready." Bacterial genes are forced into their DNA so that the plants can tolerate Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Therefore, GM soy always carries the double threat of higher herbicide content, couple with any side effects of genetic engineering.

Years of Reproductive Disorders from GMO-Feed

Surov's hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce.

In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova's feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.

When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue! Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.

An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), and the smaller the babies were.

Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry's problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior." Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females "at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens." One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.

In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.

Denial, Attack and Canceled Follow-up

Scientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high infant mortality among GM soy fed offspring, for example, she appealed to the scientific community to repeat and verify her preliminary results. She also sought additional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk, and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research. No one has yet repeated Ermakova's simple, inexpensive studies.

In an attempt to offer her sympathy, one of her colleagues suggested that maybe the GM soy will solve the over population problem!

Surov reports that so far, he has not been under any pressure.

Opting Out of the Massive GMO Feeding Experiment

Without detailed tests, no one can pinpoint exactly what is causing the reproductive travesties in Russian hamsters and rats, Italian and Austrian mice, and livestock in India and America. And we can only speculate about the relationship between the introduction of genetically modified foods in 1996, and the corresponding upsurge in low birth weight babies, infertility, and other problems among the US population. But many scientists, physicians, and concerned citizens don't think that the public should remain the lab animals for the biotech industry's massive uncontrolled experiment.

Alexey Surov says, "We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible adverse effects, not only to ourselves but to future generations as well. We definitely need fully detailed studies to clarify this. Any type of contamination has to be tested before we consume it, and GMO is just one of them."

For more info on the scientifically documented health dangers of GMO's, please visit The Institute for Responsible Technology website at:

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

s

POPE BENEDICT (quietly) IN FAVOR OF GMO's



Vatican agrees that countries must be empowered to increase domestic
agricultural production and that genetically modified crops
(GMOs) have a role in this process
, but not everybody in the
Church is comfortable with them. The Vatican cannot force all
bishops to endorse biotechnology, he said, particularly if their
opposition has to do with concerns over protecting profits
oflarge corporations who hold the patents for the crops, versus
feeding the hungry.

Vatican officials remain largely supportive of genetically modified
crops as a vehicle for protecting the environment while feeding
the hungry, but -- at least for now -- are unwilling to
challenge bishops who disagree.


While the Vatican's message on caring for the
environment is loud and clear, its message on biotechnologies
is still low-profile (ref. b). Quietly supportive, the Church
considers the choice of whether to embrace GMOs as a technical
decision for farmers and governments.


The Vatican's own scientific academy has stated that there is no evidence
GMOs are harmful, and that they could indeed be part of addressing global
food security. However, when individual Church leaders, for
ideological reasons or ignorance, speak out against GMOs, the
Vatican does not -- at least not yet -- feel that it is its duty
to challenge them.


Linking development with use of agricultural technologies
(i.e., biotechnologies), pope Benedict stressed good governance
and further infrastructure development
as essential to increasing food security over the long-term.

(Note: Benedict's mention of agricultural technologies is a
small but significant step towards more vocal Vatican support
of biotechnologies.

Post will continue to lobby the Vatican to
speak up in favor of GMOs, in the hope that a louder voice in
Rome will encourage individual Church leaders elsewhere to
reconsider their critical views.


Newly Leaked Cable: Pope ‘quietly supportive’ of GMOs

By Rady Ananda

Posted on December 20, 2010

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/pope-supports-gmos/

Just released yesterday, a November 19, 2009 leaked cable indicates Pope Benedict XVI supports genetically modified foods, though he will not publicly admit it. A June 2009 cable from the US Vatican Embassy confirmed the Pontiff’s refusal to take a stance on GM foods, which was verified in December 2010 by a Vatican spokesperson. However, this latest cable tells quite a different story:

Linking development with use of agricultural technologies (i.e., biotechnologies), Benedict stressed good governance and further infrastructure development as essential to increasing food security over the long-term. (Note: Benedict’s mention of agricultural technologies is a small but significant step towards more vocal Vatican support of biotechnologies. End Note)”

The analyst further concludes:

“While the Vatican’s message on caring for the environment is loud and clear, its message on biotechnologies is still low-profile (ref. b). Quietly supportive, the Church considers the choice of whether to embrace GMOs as a technical decision for farmers and governments.”

Providing much more analysis than the June 2009 cable, the November 2009 cable indicates strong support within the Vatican scientific community, which apparently remains unaware of the biotech industry’s penchant for suppressing science:

The Vatican’s own scientific academy has stated that there is no evidence GMOs are harmful, and that they could indeed be part of addressing global food security.

However, when individual Church leaders, for ideological reasons or ignorance, speak out against GMOs, the Vatican does not — at least not yet — feel that it is its duty to challenge them.”

Vatican proponents of GM foods may have missed several scientific reports [1] that highlight problems with GMOs. As previously reported, several times:

* GM foods have been linked to organ damage and sterility in mammals, while others correlate rising diabetes and obesity rates with GMO introduction. There’s also the question of allergic reaction to GM foods, proof of which is hidden by lack of labeling.

* GM crops (and GM forests) are genetically modified to produce or tolerate pesticides. Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, has been linked to birth defects, cancer and miscarriages in humans. Pesticides are suspected in causing or contributing to mass bee, bat and butterfly die-off, as well as a pandemic amphibian decline. Their use is also linked to 11 million acres of superweeds in the U.S.

* Further, GM crops cannot be contained. They’ve spread in nations all over the world, even becoming established in the wild.

Given such strong evidence of environmental harm, the Pope’s strong advocacy of the environment would logically include opposition to GM crops. In fact, we find the opposite.


This latest cable further confirms that globally promoting genetically modified foods is a high priority for the US State Department. As discussed in a prior piece, numerous leaked cables reveal a strong focus by embassy officials on cataloging how nations perceive GMOs, boosting GM acceptance in Africa, and even going so far as to discuss spiking food prices to spur GM acceptance in Europe. The latest cable is no different:

Post will continue to lobby the Vatican to speak up in favor of GMOs, in the hope that a louder voice in Rome will encourage individual Church leaders elsewhere to reconsider their critical views. End Comment.”

Strong opposition within the church cites the monopoly control over food held by multinational corporations:

“The Vatican cannot force all bishops to endorse biotechnology, he said, particularly if their opposition has to do with concerns over protecting profits oflarge corporations who hold the patents for the crops, versus feeding the hungry. In the Philippines, he noted, bishops strongly protested GMOs in the past. (Note: South African Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier’s November 16 comments to a news agency that ‘Africans do not need GMOs, but water’ is another example of specific Church leaders skeptical about the potential benefits of new biotechnologies. End note.).”

Corporate control of the food supply is only one problem with biotech foods, albeit a major one. After fourteen years of commercial experience, the U.S. is fast becoming the poster child for why nations, and the Church, should reject such technology.

Here is the original article with links to the cables and other relevant info:

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/pope-supports-gmos/

Below is the complete summary of the leaked Nov 2009 cable

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 VATICAN 000119

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/17/2034
TAGS: AORC BEXP EAGR ENRG FAO PGOV PREL SENV UN DA SF
VT

SUBJECT: POPE TURNS UP THE HEAT ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

REF: A. A) VATICAN 104
¶B. B) VATICAN 96

VATICAN 00000119 001.2 OF 002

CLASSIFIED BY: Rafael Foley, Pol Chief.
REASON: 1.4 (b), (d)

¶1. (SBU) Summary: Pope Benedict addressed the opening of the
World Food Summit urging leaders to care for the world's hungry
and protect the environment. Similarly, at the UN General
Assembly, the Vatican nuncio stressed the need for a
comprehensive international energy policy that protects the
environment and limits climate change. Meanwhile Vatican
officials remain largely supportive of genetically modified
crops as a vehicle for protecting the environment while feeding
the hungry, but -- at least for now -- are unwilling to
challenge bishops who disagree.
End Summary.

¶2. (U) In remarks at the opening of the World Food Security
Summit in Rome on November 16th, Pope Benedict devoted over one
third of his speech to the link between food security and
environmental degradation. The Pope stressed that states have
an obligation to future generations to reduce environmental
degradation. Citing the probable link between environmental
destruction and climate change, he stated that protecting the
environment requires "change in the lifestyles of individuals
and communities, in habits of consumption and in perceptions of
what is genuinely needed." Benedict urged the international
community to promote development while safeguarding the planet.

¶3. (SBU) The Pope also stated that access to "sufficient,
healthy and nutritious" food is a fundamental right upheld by
the Catholic Church. Linking development with use of
agricultural technologies (i.e., biotechnologies), Benedict
stressed good governance and further infrastructure development
as essential to increasing food security over the long-term.
(Note: Benedict's mention of agricultural technologies is a
small but significant step towards more vocal Vatican support
of biotechnologies.
End Note)

¶4. (C) In a separate meeting November 11, Poloff spoke with
Monsignor James Reinert, the point person on food security and
biotechnology at the Vatican's Council of Justice and Peace - a
Vatican think tank on social issues . Reinert said the Vatican
agrees that countries must be empowered to increase domestic
agricultural production and that genetically modified crops
(GMOs) have a role in this process, but not everybody in the
Church is comfortable with them. The Vatican cannot force all
bishops to endorse biotechnology, he said, particularly if their
opposition has to do with concerns over protecting profits
oflarge corporations who hold the patents for the crops, versus
feeding the hungry.
In the Philippines, he noted, bishops
strongly protested GMOs in the past. (Note: South African
Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier's November 16 comments to a news
agency that "Africans do not need GMOs, but water" is another
example of specific Church leaders skeptical about the potential
benefits of new biotechnologies. End note.).

¶5. (U) Comment: The Vatican is publicly stressing in various
fora the need to care for the environment in the run-up to the
Copenhagen Climate Change Summit. Pope Benedict places caring
for the environment ("the creation") as a central social,
economic and moral issue to his papacy.

The Pope's proposal to
curb environmental degradation is for people everywhere to
reject excessive materialism and consumerism. In the Vatican's
view, unsustainable lifestyles in developed countries--and not
population growth worldwide--is to blame for global warming.

Vatican officials claim that the planet has the capacity to feed
and sustain its expanding population, provided resources are
properly distributed and waste controlled. Until recently,
Vatican officials often noted that the countries that released
most of the greenhouse gases were not the world's most populous.
As China and India industrialize and release more greenhouse
gases, however, the Vatican may find it more difficult to blame
climate change on lifestyles only. Even as this happens,
however, the Vatican will continue to oppose aggressive
population control measures to fight hunger or global warming.

¶6. (SBU) While the Vatican's message on caring for the
environment is loud and clear, its message on biotechnologies
is still low-profile (ref. b). Quietly supportive, the Church
considers the choice of whether to embrace GMOs as a technical
decision for farmers and governments. The Vatican's own

scientific academy has stated that there is no evidence GMOs are
harmful, and that they could indeed be part of addressing global
food security. However, when individual Church leaders, for
ideological reasons or ignorance, speak out against GMOs, the
Vatican does not -- at least not yet -- feel that it is its duty
to challenge them. Post will continue to lobby the Vatican to
speak up in favor of GMOs, in the hope that a louder voice in
Rome will encourage individual Church leaders elsewhere to
reconsider their critical views.
End Comment.
DIAZ

source: http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/11/09VATICAN119.html

WIKILEAKS REVEALS US PRO-GMO AGENDA IN AFRICA...



Leaked reports reveal US government pushing hard for GMOs in Africa

Friday, December 10, 2010 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

http://www.naturalnews.com/030683_GMOs_Africa.html

(NaturalNews) Information obtained from several WikiLeaks reports exposes a potential U.S. government plot to thrust genetically-modified organisms (GMO) on the continent of Africa. According to verbiage found in the leaked messages, it appears that the recent creation by the Pentagon of AFRICOM, a U.S. military command post headquartered in Africa, was at least in part done for the purpose of securing access to the continent's natural resources, as well as establishing a GMO foothold there.

According to a summary of the reports written by Richard Brenneman, former associate editor of the magazine Psychology Today and a longtime journalist, AFRICOM is the brainchild of a retired four-star Air Force general who is now a paid lobbyist for the agrofuels industry. This fact alone suggests that the efforts of the new military post will play at least some role in serving such interests, including those of the biotechnology industry that clearly benefits from the expanded use of GMOs.

One report sent by Tom Cunningham, the head of operations at the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) on April 9, 2009, explains that the agency desperately needed as much information as possible about any individuals connected with the African Great Lakes in order to formulate "Mission Strategic Plans (MSPs)." These plans includes tackling "Mineral Resources", as well as "Food Security and Agriculture (FOOD)."

Specifically under "Food Security and Agriculture", the report explains that African officials must be persuaded to accept and propagate GMOs throughout Africa. It also mentions verifying the status of "structural adjustments" and "infrastructure improvements" that needed to take place in order to accommodate the introduction of GMOs.

The other reports go on to explain various other political efforts that relate to GMOs and agrofuels, but the main thrust seems to indicate a clear agenda by certain government agencies to take whatever steps necessary to expand GMO use both in Africa and around the world.

Below are excerpts and details of the leaked wikileak reports on spreading GMO's in Africa:

Leaked cables reveal GMO, agrofuel agendas

Posted on 2010 December 5, by richardbrenneman

http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/leaked-cables-reveal-u-s-gmo-agrofuel-agendas/

UPDATED

The U.S. is targeting African officials to push genetically modified crops on Africa, and promoting agrofuels appears to be a significant item on the State Department’s agenda.

Those facts were revealed in our search of the American cables released by WikiLeaks and have not been reported by the nation’s news media.

The cables confirm the fears of Third World activists reported here on previous occasions. We would simply note that the Pentagon’s recently created military command for Africa — AFRICOM — was created by the now retired Air Force four-star general who retired to become a paid lobbyist for the agrofuel industry.

Now straight to the cables, which are available for online searches here(see original article for link).

African resources targeted by Clinton’s State Department

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been in office less than three months when the head of operations for her department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research [INR] sent out a cable on 9 April 2009 titled “REPORTING AND COLLECTION NEEDS: AFRICAN GREAT.”

The message was classified SECRET//NOFORN, meaning that no copies were to be provided to any foreign nationals. First, Cunnigham tasked her spooks with gathering “the following information as possible when they have information relating to persons linked to African Great Lakes: office and organizational titles; names, position titles and other information on business cards; numbers of telephones, cell phones, pagers and faxes; compendia of contact information, such as telephone directories (in compact disc or electronic format if available) and e-mail listings; internet and intranet ‘handles’, internet e-mail addresses, web site identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent flyer account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information.”
The intelligence gathering effort will “guide participating USG [U.S. government] agencies as they allocate resources and update plans to collect information on African Great Lakes. . .The priorities should also serve as a useful tool to help the Embassy manage reporting and collection, including formulation of Mission Strategic Plans (MSPs).”

Specific countries targeted were the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, and Rwanda. Under the heading “Country-Specific Issues,” the first heading, taking precedence over “Genocidal Legacy Issues” is “Mineral Resources, ” which would seem to confirm that a major focus behind the creation of AFRICOM was control of Africa’s oil riches.

But the issue of immediate concern is to be found under the heading “Food Security and Agriculture (FOOD).” Among the areas targeted for intelligence collection are three that should alarm bells for African activists and others concerned with resource issues, specifically:

Government acceptance of genetically modified food and propagation of genetically modified crops.

Status of structural adjustments and infrastructure improvements to increase agricultural producer income and reduce migration to urban areas.

Information on surface and groundwater resources, to include sources, treatment, distribution and storage.

The interest in government policies on GMOs sounds a warning that the State Department is pushing the interests of the powerful U.S. corporations which have taken the lead in pushing proprietary crops and their accompanying suites of patented herbicides and pesticides.

Structural adjustments” is a particularly ominous pair of words, usually invoked by outfits like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund when mandating privatization of basic resources in exchange for financial aid.

Sarkozy and the GMO industry

The next cable, classified CONFIDENTIAL, was sent by U.S. Ambassador Craig R. Stapleton on 26 October 2007 during Condoleeza Rice’s tenure at State prior to French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s first state visit to the U.S. It’s titled “PRESIDENT SARKOZY’S FIRST OFFICIAL VISIT TO THE U.S.: POLICY COORDINATION WITH A SELF-CONSCIOUSLY INDEPENDENT FRANCE.”

GMOs, as well as pharmaceuticals, are mentioned in the 14th paragraph:
¶14. (SBU) The U.S.-French economic relationship remains robust, with over $1 billion in commercial transactions per day taking place between the two countries’ firms. During President Sarkozy’s visit, CEOs from some of the most important of these will meet, for the first time in several years as the French-American Business Council (FABC) to exchange views on policy priorities. U.S. firms have been almost unanimously positive about the Sarkozy government. Nonetheless there are a number of regulatory unknowns that could potentially impact U.S. commercial interests. Among these are the GOF’s evolving views on genetically-modified organisms, IPR in the digital environment and pricing policy as it relates to pharmaceutical spending.

UPDATE: And then there’s this from the same cable, pointed out by reader Madeline Love [see the comments], revealing that Sarkozy’s “opposition” to GMO crops may be little more than a deft bit of political cover:
¶33. (SBU) GMO Moratorium: When Sarkozy [French President] came into office not only did he create a ‘mega’ environment ministry, but he also directed it to undertake a process, the ‘Grenelle’, involving all sectors of the economy to reshape French environmental policies. Among the topics considered in the Grenelle was what to do about Genetically Modified Organisms, a subject of considerable domestic concern in France. The result is that France is currently considering a moratorium on biotech planting that would significantly undermine U.S. agricultural exports to Europe. We believe President Sarkozy may support the politically popular moratorium in order to gain capital to use in his reform efforts.

GMOs, agrofuel and Great Britain

The next cable, marked UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY, recounts discussions on both agrofuels and GMOs with then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on 25 April 2008. The heading: UK FOOD SUMMIT HIGHLIGHTS PM BROWN’S CONCERN.

Cause for special concern for African land use activists is the British push for large-scale plantation agriculture, but there lots more about GMOs and agrofuels as well

Here’s the relevant text:

¶1. (SBU) Summary: At an April 22, PM Brown-hosted meeting to address increases in food prices, participants disagreed about future trends and the impact of biofuels, agreed that action needed to be taken both for immediate social protection and longer-term agricultural investment, and that care should be taken not to talk up a “crisis.” The UK press release following the meeting included a broad range of proposed actions that the UK plans to pursue both domestically and internationally, ranging from increased assistance to a WTO trade deal and improved World Bank and IMF effectiveness. DFID also announced a new GBP 455 million ($910 million) five-year assistance package. In DFID’s view, the current crisis is being caused by high and rising food prices, not a shortage of food. End Summary.

¶2. (SBU) On April 22, PM Brown hosted a one and a half hour meeting to discuss ways the international community could respond to the growing global food price crisis. Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Director Simon Maxwell, who was called on to set the stage at the meeting, told us he was surprised that the meeting, which was originally intended to be a small private event, was publicized and expanded to include more international players. Participants included UK government ministers, international organizations such Josette Sheeran from the World Food Program, business, academics and others. For the full list, see paragraph 16.

¶3. (SBU) PM Brown opened the meeting, introducing the list of action areas he had asked the Japanese Prime Minister to put on the G8 agenda, including short tern measures to deal with immediate hardship and long term structural measures as outlined in paragraph 13. (see also www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page15321.asp). UK Development Secretary Douglas Alexander concluded the meeting by
SIPDIS emphasizing the need for the international architecture to keep up. He noted that this had been a key theme at the World Bank Development Committee in Washington earlier in April. He also expressed surprise there had not been more discussion about concluding a WTO trade deal as a means to address food price concerns.

Food Prices and Biofuels

¶4. (SBU) Participants disagreed about likely food price trends and the impact of biofuels. UK Environment Secretary Hilary Benn noted that the futures market for wheat showed the price falling more than 25 percent from current levels by next year. Cargill’s Ruth Rawling predicted that wheat prices would come down quite quickly, noting that there is a harvest somewhere on the planet every sixty days, except for rice. ODI estimated that prices would fall back from their current peak to roughly what they had been in the early 1990s. (See ODI’s discussion paper on the topic at http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/briefing/ bp37-april08-rising-food-prices.pdf)

¶5. (SBU) On the other hand, Stefan Tangermann from the OECD Trade & Agriculture Directorate said their modeling showed maize prices for the next ten years would be 60 percent higher than during the past decade and that half of this increase was due to biofuels.

Joachim Von Braun, Director General, Inter Food Policy Institute Research (IFPRI) suggested a moratorium on maize for biofuels. Their modeling showed it would reduce maize prices by 20 percent immediately and wheat prices by 10 percent, with further reductions because it would discourage speculation.

¶6. (SBU) Others defended biofuels. Benn wanted to see hard facts and analysis on biofuels. Mike Bushell, from agri-business company Syngenta, argued against demonizing biofuels. Rawling argued against rigid mandates and in favor of buy-out clauses for biofuels. She also noted that flexibility is essential since biofuel targets are fixed in terms of fuel markets not food markets, and 2.5 percent of the fuel market can represent as much as 20 percent of a food market.

Causes and Remedies

¶7. (SBU) Maxwell told us the headline messages about social protection in the short run and agricultural investment in the long run were clear to the participants, but everything else about causes and remedies was contested. Paul Collier, Oxford University, argued that the main cause was growth in China, which no one wants to reduce. He also pointed to “follies” that he wanted to undo, specifically U.S. biofuels subsidies, and the EU refusal to accept genetically modified crops. Collier wanted to see large-scale farming in Africa along the lines of the Brazilian model. (For details, see Collier’s April 15 article in the Times: Food Shortages: Think Big. www.timesonline.co.uk) On April 24, Malcolm Bruce, MP and chairman of Parliament’s International Development Committee (IDC), speaking at an IDC evidence session dismissed Collier’s suggestion that African countries adopt the Brazilian model as a “professorial point of view, not a politician’s.”

We hope that people on the left side of the spectrum will stop smearing WikiLeaks and really explored the cables. They are filled with revelations of the sort we’ve featured here.

Come on guys, let’s all start digging.

Article source with references & links:

http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/leaked-cables-reveal-u-s-gmo-agrofuel-agendas/

Bt COTTON BOOSTING PESTICIDE USE IN INDIA & CHINA


Bt cotton boosting pesticide use

Tuesday, 16 February 2010 14:02

GM WATCH

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11944:bt-cotton-boosting-pesticide-use

NOTE: GM lobbyists have tried to paint Bt cotton in India as a massive success story that's cut insecticide use and boosted productivity. Now Keshav Kranthi, a leading Indian entomologist and acting director of India's Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR)] has told the Indian government that the rapid adoption of GM cotton by farmers across the country has coincided with:

*the rise of hitherto unknown insect pests

*increased pesticide applications by farmers

*declining cotton productivity over the past three years

The picture of what's been happening in India emerging from the research of this pro-GM scientist, ties in with the findings of research in China (also undertaken by GM supporters) which showed that seven years after the commercialization of Bt cotton there, the expenditure on pesticides by Bt cotton farmers was more or less the same as for conventional (non-GM) growers, despite the extra expenditure the Bt farmers were making on GM seeds in order to reduce (supposedly) their need to spray.
http://www.grain.org/btcotton/?id=374

In India the picture appears to be even worse with pesticide applications on Bt cotton significantly overtaking those on conventional cotton.

EXTRACT: Kranthi says 90 per cent of the current GM cotton hybrids appear susceptible to mealybugs and whiteflies. Insecticide use in cotton appears to have increased from Rs 640 crore [6,400,000 rupees] in 2006 to Rs 800 crore [8,000,000 rupees] in 2008, his report said.
---
---
Cotton lessons for Bt brinjal
G.S.MUDUR
The Telegraph, February 15 2010
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100216/jsp/nation/story_12110833.jsp

New Delhi: Crop scientist Keshav Kranthi would hate being labelled campaigner against genetic engineering. He says he supports plant biotechnology and wants India to pursue the myriad promises it offers.

But in the polarised debate on the genetically modified (GM) brinjal, Kranthi has aligned himself with groups calling for caution before its release, citing little-known but serious trouble with cotton rarely articulated before.

Kranthi, acting director of the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) in Nagpur, has warned that poor management of the technology has spawned an abundance of predictable and unexpected problems. The rapid adoption of GM cotton by farmers across the country has coincided with the rise of hitherto unknown insect pests, increased pesticide applications by farmers, and declining cotton productivity over the past three years, he has told the government.

Indian regulators approved GM cotton engineered with a bacterial gene to resist an insect — based on technology similar to that in GM brinjal — in 2002. Kranthi asserts there are no scientifically-authenticated safety issues over GM cotton from anywhere.

Farmers have adopted the GM cotton, which now makes up 90 per cent of the crop in some areas, and virtually eliminated its target pest — bollworms. India's annual cotton output has jumped from 3 billion kg to 5.3 billion kg over the past decade.

But new insects, including one called a mealybug, not known as cotton pests, have spread, causing significant economic losses, Kranthi said in a report sent to the ministry of environment and forests with his comments on GM brinjal.

"Cotton is a tricky crop - we should have been more careful," Kranthi said. "There are lessons to be learnt from this experience for future genetically modified crops, brinjal or anything else," he told The Telegraph.

The environment ministry last week imposed a moratorium on the release of GM brinjal that will remain in place until independent studies are able to establish its safety and there is scientific consensus that it can be released.

Many crop and biotechnology industry scientists have pitched yield and economic gains from GM cotton to farmers as striking examples of the fruits of biotechnology, arguing that GM brinjal would deliver similar benefits.

But a mealybug named Phenacoccus solenopsis, not observed earlier in India, has spread across northern, central and western states after it was first recognised as a cotton pest about five years ago, Kranthi said. In desperation, farmers have begun to spray "extremely hazardous" pesticides on the cotton to fight the insect, which has a waxy coating over its surface that makes it hard to kill with less toxic pesticides, he said.

The reduced use of pesticides on GM cotton and the proliferation of GM cotton hybrids that are susceptible to these insects may have contributed to the emergence of these pests, according to Kranthi's report. "The inappropriate choice of hybrids and the arbitrary and prolific spread of GM cotton hybrids have created conditions congenial for the rapid multiplication of these new insects."

Kranthi sees himself as an insider, a biotechnology believer, urging caution. "Someone has to point this out," said Kranthi, a 47-year-old entomologist who had articulated similar concerns five years ago in the journal Current Science from the Indian Academy of Sciences.

But other scientists disagree with him. “He’s wrong on this. New insect pests always overtake old ones. This could be part of a natural cycle that has nothing to do with GM cotton,” said Thirkannad Manjunath, a senior entomologist who has worked with both government and private crop science institutions.

Another scientist who heads a private biotechnology company said the emergence of new pests was not surprising. “The significantly reduced use of pesticide sprays would have allowed these (non-bollworm) insects to multiply,” said K.K. Narayanan, who is also a member of the Association of Biotechnology-Led Enterprises. “We’ve always maintained that genetic modification (of plants) is only part of a package of crop management practices.”

But Kranthi says 90 per cent of the current GM cotton hybrids appear susceptible to mealybugs and whiteflies. Insecticide use in cotton appears to have increased from Rs 640 crore in 2006 to Rs 800 crore in 2008, his report said.

The report also points out that seed companies have produced over 600 GM cotton hybrids, and farmers in cotton-growing districts find themselves having to choose from 150 to 200 hybrids. Yet India’s cotton productivity has declined over the past three years — from 560kg lint per hectare in 2007 to 520kg lint in 2008 to 512 kg lint in 2009. A wrong choice of hybrids, Kranthi said, may be contributing to this drop. “A wise choice of GM cotton hybrids which are tailored for geographical regions after taking into account their susceptibility to other pests may have led to much better outcomes.”

Some scientists point out that mandatory state and district-level technical committees for crop genetic engineering that could have guided the appropriate choice of hybrids are missing in many states. “The hybrids used depend on farmers, seed suppliers and university extension centres,” said C. Kameswara Rao, director of the Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education in Bangalore. “This has nothing to do with GM cotton or approvals,” he said.

Bt cotton boosting pesticide use in China

GRAIN

source: http://www.grain.org/btcotton/?id=374

"Seven years after the initial commercialization of Bt cotton in China, we show that total pesticide expenditure for Bt cotton farmers in China is nearly equal to that of their conventional counterparts, about $101 per hectare.

Bt farmers in 2004 on the average, have to spray pesticide 18.22 times, which are more than 3 times higher compared with 6 times pesticide spray in 1999. Detailed information on pesticide expenditures reveals that, though Bt farmers saved 46% Bollworm pesticide relative to non-Bt farmers, they spend 40% more on pesticides designed to kill an emerging secondary pest. These secondary pests (one example is Mirid) was rarely found in the field prior to the adoption of Bt cotton, presumably kept in check by bollworm populations and regular pesticide spraying. The extra expenditure needed to control secondary pests nearly offsets the savings on primary pesticide frequently cited in the current literature."

Study link: Tarnishing Silver Bullets: Bt Technology Adoption, Bounded Rationality and the Outbreak of Secondary Pest Infestations in China (Shenghui Wang, David Just, Jul-2006)

http://www.grain.org/research_files/SWang_tarnished.pdf

MONSANTO'S GM Bt COTTON USELESS: COTTON PESTS THRIVING & BREEDING IN Bt COTTON FIELDS...


Worms eat into GM crop myth - Insects expected to drop dead thrive on cotton plants

The Telegraph, India

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101212/jsp/frontpage/story_13290179.jsp#top

New Delhi, Dec. 11: Insects expected to drop dead after feeding on genetically modified cotton plants have instead been found for the first time in India to be thriving and even successfully breeding on the plants.

Government entomologists have detected natural bollworms — pests of cotton — capable of feeding, surviving and reproducing on commercial varieties of GM cotton, and spawning progeny that can also complete a full life cycle on the plants.

The entomologists at the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Raichur, Karnataka, say their observations coming within eight years after the start of commercial cultivation of GM cotton in India put a question mark on the wisdom of relying heavily on GM plants, particularly to fight crop pests.

We saw virtually no differences between the biology of insect populations reared on the GM cotton and the non-GM cotton,” said Aralimarad Prabhuraj, associate professor of agricultural entomology at the UAS. The results of their studies appeared yesterday in the journal Current Science, published by the Indian Academy of Sciences.

The GM cotton plants are designed to produce a bacterial protein that is toxic to bollworms. But the bollworm larvae picked up by the UAS researchers from their experimental farms in Raichur defiantly survived the toxins produced by the plants.

Previous studies from the US, China and India have shown that bollworms can feed on GM cotton plants. But the new study is the first to demonstrate that bollworms can breed on the GM cotton and produce fertile offspring that also have the same capability.

The rise of GM cotton in India has been hailed by the biotechnology industry, many crop scientists and sections of farmers as a runaway success. India’s annual cotton production has more than doubled from 2.3 million tonnes in 2002 before the introduction of GM cotton to 5.4 million tonnes in 2008. Agricultural statistics suggest that cotton productivity has also increased from 302kg per hectare to 567kg per hectare.

“We have indeed seen a dramatic boost to India’s cotton,” Prabhuraj said. “But we had always anticipated that at some point in time, we’ll encounter pests that can withstand the modified plants. No one knew when it would happen,” Prabhuraj told The Telegraph.

The UAS researchers said their study did not probe whether the bollworms survived because they have turned resistant to the toxin in the GM cotton plants or because the amount of the toxins in the plants are below a minimum level needed to kill the insects.

“The damage caused by the bollworms to the GM cotton plants suggests that rather than banking on GM technology alone, we need to lay emphasis on integrated pest management, or IPM,” said Yerbahalli B. Srinivasa, a team member at the Institute of Wood Science and Technology, Bangalore. In IPM, farmers are encouraged to use multiple strategies to combat pests.

Prabhuraj and Srinivasa say that without IPM, the population of insects capable of surviving GM plants may grow beyond a tipping point where the crop losses would be significant.

A senior biotechnology scientist said the UAS findings aren’t surprising.

We’ve known for decades that insects can develop resistance,” said Shantu Shantaram, executive director of the Association of Biotechnology-Led Enterprises. “We completely agree that GM plants should be used in tandem with IPM,” Shantaram said.

A five-year study by scientists at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute in New Delhi has shown that the durability of GM cotton varieties can be extended through IPM, Shantaram said. But IPM demands regular, at times even daily, monitoring of pests in the field, and a calibrated response to the pest populations.

“This requires a lot of effort and labour, and not all farmers may be able to practise this,” Shantaram said.

The UAS study observed survival and breeding of bollworms on both first-generation as well as a second-generation GM cotton. The second-generation varieties are loaded with two toxins, and thus viewed as a superior alternative to GM cotton with only one toxin.

The link to the study: Survival and reproduction of natural
populations of Helicoverpa armigera on
Bt-cotton hybrids in Raichur, India


http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/10dec2010/1602.pdf

MONSANTO's GM MAIZE LINKED TO ORGAN DAMAGE, HIV TRANSMISSION, DANGER TO THE ENVIRONMENT, BANNED IN EU & AUTHORIZED IN EAST AFRICA...




If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”
~Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father & president of the United States

GM MAIZE OPEN-FIELD TESTING BEGIN IN EAST AFRICA, WHILE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES LINK MONSANTO's GM MAIZE TO ORGAN DAMAGE and MAIZE CONSUMPTION TO HIV TRANSMISSION IN AFRICA & EU COUNTRIES BAN GM MAIZE…

In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage.

The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

Worse, another scientific research paper recently published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has found thatHIV transmission frequency is positively associated with maize consumption in Africa.

Several EU states and other countries have banned GM maize and other GMO crops based on independent scientific and empirical evidence which link GM maize and other GMO crops to serious negative health effects on both human and animals and to serious irreversible hazards to the environment and the entire ecosystem. The German government has banned Monsanto's GM Maize (MON 810)- the only GMO crop authorized by the EU - calling it "a danger to the environment.."

Tragically, however, at the same time East African countries begin open-field testing of Monsanto's so-called "drought-resistant" GM maize to fight " hunger and poverty" in Africa...

Please read below for details:

GM maize trials to begin in East Africa

By Katy Migiro

NAIROBI, Oct 15 (Reuters) - Confined field trials of genetically modified maize will begin in Kenya and Uganda this year once regulators approve it, the U.S.-based non-profit African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) said.

Scientists from Kenyan and Ugandan government research bodies, Monsanto (MON.N) and research body International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) developed the 12 varieties of Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) due to be planted.

Maize is the most widely grown staple food in Africa and is badly affected by drought. The scientists aim for the drought-resistant GM maize to increase yields by 24 to 35 percent.

"Everything we have seen in the simulated trials shows that we can safely test transgenic maize varieties in carefully controlled and confined field trials in Africa," James Gethi, the WEMA-Kenya country coordinator, said in a statement seen by Reuters late on Thursday.

Scientists conducted mock trials in simulated conditions in Kenya and Tanzania in 2009. The transgenic maize will now be planted in 1-2 hectare confined fields once Kenya and Uganda give regulatory approval.

The world's poorest continent, where agriculture contributes up to a quarter of GDP in some countries and is an important source of foreign exchange, is increasingly turning to genetically modified crops to bolster food supplies.

But critics and consumers, mostly in Africa and Europe, have questioned the safety of GM foods and have banned their import or cultivation due to fears they could harm humans and wildlife.

If the maize is approved, it will be licensed to AATF, which is funded by the United States and British governments.

"The expected WEMA transgenic drought-tolerant maize seed will be sub-licensed to local seed companies royalty-free for a term or duration to be determined based on future product deployment agreements," AATF Communications Officer Grace Wachoro said in a statement to Reuters.

"The confined field trials will enable the project to address safety issues."
AATF said the resulting trial maize crop will be destroyed in accordance with Kenyan and Ugandan research regulations.

Trials are also planned for South Africa, Mozambique and Tanzania.

More than 30 countries, including all of the European Union, have restricted or banned the production of GM crops because they are not considered proven safe.

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE69D1Q320101015

MONSANTO'S GM MAIZE LINKED TO ORGAN DAMAGE WARNS SCIENTIFIC STUDY

Huffington Post, Katherine Goldstein/Gazelle Emami

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html

01-12-10

In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.

According to the study, which was summarized by Rady Ananda at Food Freedom ( see copy below), "Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities."

Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however.

In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote:

"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage

Posted on January 1, 2010

By Rady Ananda

In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.

Three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn – Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 – were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. The data used for this approval, ironically, is the same data that independent researchers studied to make the organ damage link.

The Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen obtained Monsanto’s confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats after a European court made it public in 2005.

The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMOs, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each, differentiated by sex and dose.

Their December 2009 study appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences available at the following link: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11.

This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.

Monsanto rejected the 2007 conclusions, stating:

“The analyses conducted by these authors are not consistent with what has been traditionally accepted for use by regulatory toxicologists for analysis of rat toxicology data.”

[Also see Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, et al. “Report of an expert panel on the reanalysis by Séralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863).” Food Chem Toxicol. 2007; 45:2073-2085.]

In an email to me, Séralini explained that their study goes beyond Monsanto’s analysis by exploring the sex-differentiated health effects on mammals, which Doull, et al. ignored:

“Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data.”
Other problems with Monsanto’s conclusions

When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol uses three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.

Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests “lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases,” wrote Seralini, et al. in their Doull rebuttal. [See “How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals.” IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]
Further, Monsanto’s analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, “In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent.”

The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.

They have called for “an immediate ban on the import and cultivation of these GMOs and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.”

Human health, of course, is of primary import to us, but ecological effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either tolerate or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we see bee colony collapse disorder and massive butterfly deaths. If GMOs are wiping out Earth’s pollinators, they are far more disastrous than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals.
Source: http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/three-approved-gmos-linked-to-organ-damage/

Note: Over 90% of the feral (wild) bee population in the United States have died out. Recent studies in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have shown that bee diversity is down 80 percent, and that "bee species are declining or have become extinct in Britain." The studies also revealed that the numbers of wildflowers that depend on pollination have dropped by 70 percent.

As Albert Einstein said & warned: "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years left to live."

Germany bans cultivation of GM corn

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 by: David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) The German government has banned the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) corn, calling it "a danger to the environment."

The cultivation of all other GM crops is already banned in Germany. The variety in question, known as MON 810, produces a pesticide inside its tissues to repel insects such as larvae of the corn borer moth. Such corn is also known as Bt corn, after the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium that the toxin-producing genes come from.

MON 810 was approved for cultivation by the European Union in 1998, but E.U. law allows individual countries to impose their own bans. Such bans have since been implemented by Austria, France, Greece, Hungary and Luxemburg. According to German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner, Germany will now join their ranks.

The move was welcomed by environmental groups Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Germany. Greenpeace spokesperson Stephanie Towe said that the decision is based on solid scientific evidence of environmental harm and should have been made long ago.

Critics say that GM crops can damage wildlife, spread their genetic material to wild relatives, and produce health problems in humans.

"As an example, it is now being discovered that pollen from genetically modified corn can kill monarch butterflies," writes Ron Garner in his book Conscious Health.

"There is long-term concern that pollen from bio-engineered crops will spread and kill beneficial insects as well as create strains of superweeds that are totally-resistant to pesticides," he writes. "Genetic engineering is changing the composition of foods, and most North American consumers are uninformed on the issue."

Biotechnology giant Monsanto, manufacturer of MON 810, condemned the new ban and said it is investigating the possibility of a lawsuit. Analysts warned that the environment ministry may have trouble proving to a court's satisfaction that the crop is harmful, potentially subjecting the government to millions of dollars in fines.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/030733_Germany_GMOs.html

SCIENTIFIC STUDY REVEALS LINK BETWEEN MAIZE CONSUMPTION & AND HIV IN AFRICA

Worse, a scientific research paper recently published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by a team of american scientists from the University of Georgia (USA) has found that “ HIV transmission frequency is positively associated with maize consumption in Africa.

ProdiGene, edible HIV maize, USAID & Food Aid

While doing further research on this subject, I came across an investigative article which carried out further research into this issue and found a disturbing link between the conclusions of this study, USAID and a US biotech company called Prodigene that in 2002 developed a GM 'pharma" maize containing a key protein found on the surface of the monkey form of HIV (gp120)to be used as an “edible vaccine” against the HIV virus…

Furthermore, during the course of his investigative research, Robert Wingfield found that the CEO of the Prodigene –Anthony G Leos - was appointed as head of USAID in 2002 by President George Bush...

As you surely know, USAID has been distributing millions of tons of GM maize as (so-called) “food aid” across Africa & is aggressively & fraudulently promoting GM food crops in African agriculture to "fight hunger and poverty..." USAID itself clearly states that among other things its role is to "integrate GM into local food systems" and "spread agricultural technology through regions of Africa."

As Robert Wingfield writes :

" In summary, we have the president of a company producing HIV tainted strains of corn on the board of an organization ( USAID) that is involved in providing genetically modified crops to sub Saharan Africa, where corn consumption is now being linked to HIV infection rates."

Coincidence…?

I have written to both USAID and the lead researcher & author of the scientific study regarding this troubling link and other issues related to the findings of his study.

I invite you to read a copy of the correspondence exchanged between us on my blog at the following link.

http://yajnacentre.blogspot.com/2011/01/open-letter-to-rajiv-shah-usaid.html

http://yajnacentre.blogspot.com/2010/12/maizecorn-linked-to-hiv-in-africa.html

URGENT ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY AFRICAN GOVERNMENTS & COUNTRIES

Precautionary Principle

In view of the above and given the serious health and irreversible environmental hazards associated with GM maize and GMO crops:

African governments/countries must immediately ban or declare a moratorium on both GM food distributed as "food aid" and on all commercial imports of GM foods and immediately halt all confined and open-field testing and growing of GMO's in Africa using the "Precautionary Principle" clause contained in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which states:

"In order to protect the environment, (and taking into account risks to human and animal health) the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

Nothing less than the future survival of the entire african population is at stake...

In fact, GMO's constitute the BIGGEST danger & threat facing the future survival of the African people and are truly the last nail in the coffin of Africa...

THE REAL (hidden) GEOPOLITICAL OBJECTIVES & AGENDA OF THE US ADMINISTRATION AND THE BIOTECH COMPANIES

"CONTROL OIL AND YOU CONTROL NATIONS
CONTROL FOOD AND YOU CONTROL PEOPLE."

Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under Nixon ( and Nobel Peace Price laureate!)

Of course, the real objectives of the US and the biotech companies are NOT " to fight hunger & poverty" in Africa...

On the contrary...

Food used as a weapon

In fact, GMO’s are used as a “weapon” and a Trojan horse by the biotech industry and the US administration to serve their own economic & financial interests and to achieve their geopolitical and genocidal agenda.

GMO's: Trojan Horse...

In fact, GMO's are a Trojan horse used by the US administration and the biotech industry to take over complete control over the supply of seeds ( and thus of food ) in Africa and worldwide through the following mechanism:

- INEVITABLE & IRREVERSIBLE GENETIC CONTAMINATION of traditionnal seeds

- STERILISATION of all contaminates seeds through the use of the jointly US government and Monsanto owned "Terminator Technology " which renders all contaminated seeds sterile.

- PATENTING of all GMO and contaminated seeds.

As a result, Africans farmers will forever lose all their traditional seeds and will be obliged to purchase patented GMO seeds from biotech multinationals every year, thereby making farmers and millions of Africans exclusively and dangerously dependent on a handful of biotech companies to eat and thus to live...

Furthermore, GMO's are NOT intended to "fight hunger and poverty" in Africa". Rather, GMO's will be used to produce agrofuels, industrial and pharmaceutical raw materials and feedstock (using GMO food crops) grown on vast seized tracks of land in Africa for consumption in affluent countries, NOT to produce food for starving Africans...

Thus, GMO's will lead to the biggest recorded FAMINE in the history of Africa & to the GENOCIDE of millions of Africans...!

The root causes of hunger & poverty

Hunger - the worst form of violence - is a direct result of unfair global trading rules and exploitative economic practices and suicidal economic policies imposed on Africa by the IMF ( International Monetary FRAUD), the World Bank(sters) and the WTO (World TERRORIST Organisation), blindly followed by so-called african "leaders" and governments which result in abject human poverty and hunger.

There is more than sufficient food to feed everyone in Africa and around the world. The problem lies in its inequitable distribution and in the lack of financial resources required to purchase it by the vast majority of the human population.

Thus, simply increasing food production without addressing the root economic, political and structural causes of poverty and without distributional justice will NOT resolve hunger.

As Mahatma Gandhi rightly stated:

"There is enough food in the world to satisfy everyone's needs but not everyone's greed."

I invite you to read the following article I have written & published on this blog for an overview of the REAL economic, social, health & environmental consequences and hazards of GMO's and the (hidden) geopolitical objectives and agenda of the US administration and the biotech companies...

http://yajnacentre.blogspot.com/2009/12/real-consequences-agenda-of-gmos.html

WAKE UP AFRICA...!

MAY GOD PROTECT AFRICA.

Thank you for widely sharing this info.

Truthfully,

Arya

" In a world surrounded by deceit, telling the Truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell