Blog Posts: Genetically engineered food

This Saturday, May 25, tens of thousands of activists across six continents, 41 countries and more than 330 cities are expected to “March Against Monsanto.”  Instigated and driven completely by grassroots activists, this global day of action hopes to demonstrate that, when many people ban together for justice and transparency, they can fight back against the powerful few. Watch this InfoWars news alert about Monsanto’s CEO feeling threatened by grassroots efforts, particularly social media.

Food & Water Watch supports the solutions that March Against Monsanto advocates for – the need for mandatory GE food labeling and further scientific research on the health and environmental impacts of GE food and repealing the Monsanto Rider that slipped into the recent budget bill (also known as the Monsanto Protection Act).

We too call for more transparency about the undue influence that Monsanto and other biotechnology seed corporations hold over our government and recently released a stunning report about how the U.S. State Department works to promote Monsanto and the biotech seed industry on the taxpayer’s dime. Link to that report as well as a corporate profile on Monsanto and a primer on GE food, below.

Food & Water Watch is proud to be supporting March Against Monsanto activities in various cities across the country – New York City; New Brunswick, New Jersey; Miami, Florida; Portland, Maine; Mystic, Connecticut; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Detroit, Michigan (check out these great pictures from a sign and costume making party earlier this week); Chicago and Springfield, Illinois; Des Moines and the Quad Cities, Iowa; Cincinnati, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Albuquerque and Santa Fe, New Mexico; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle and Ramond, Washington.

Whether or not you’re planning to March Against Monsanto this weekend, arm yourself with the facts. Food & Water Watch reports, fact sheets, blogs, press releases and sharable images can all be found here: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/monsanto/, and more information on GE foods here: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/.

By Wenonah Hauter

Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch Executive Director

Originally posted at The Guardian’s Comment is Free

If you have a feeling that genetically modified (GM) foods are being forced upon the population by a handful of business interests and vociferously defended by the scientists that work in the ag industry or at the research institutions it funds, you might be onto something. The zeal with which GMO proponents evangelize transgenic seeds (and now, transgenic food animals) is so extreme that they are even pouring vast sums of money to defeat popular efforts to simply label GE foods—like the nearly $50 million spent to defeat the popular ballot measure to label GE foods in California, Prop 37. What’s more, it’s not just happening in the United States. A new report by Food & Water Watch shows the extent to which the U.S. State Department is working on behalf of the GM seed industry to make sure that biotech crops are served up abroad—whether the world wants them or not.

The report analyzes over 900 State Department diplomatic cables from 2005 to 2009 and reveals how far the U.S. government will go to help serve the seed industry’s agenda abroad, knowing that resistance to GMOs worldwide is high. It lobbies a vociferously pro-biotech agenda, operates a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology and challenges commonsense safeguards and rules — including opposing popular GM food labeling laws.

Here are some of the tidbits gleaned from our comprehensive look at the cables:

• Between 2007 and 2009, annual cables were distributed to “encourage the use of agricultural biotechnology,” directing U.S. embassies to ”pursue an active biotech agenda”.
• There was a comprehensive communications campaign aimed to “promote understanding and acceptance of the technology” and “develop support for U.S. government trade and development policy positions on biotech” in light of the worldwide backlash against GM crops.
• Where backlash was high, some embassies downplayed efforts. In Uruguay, the embassy has been “extremely cautious to keep [its] fingerprints off conferences” promoting biotechnology. In Peru and Romania, the U.S. government helped create new pro-biotech nongovernmental organizations.
• The State Department urged embassies to generate positive media coverage about GE crops. Diplomatic posts also bypassed the media and took the message directly to the public; for example, the Hong Kong consulate sent DVDs of a pro-biotech presentation to every high school.
• The State Department worked to diminish trade barriers to the benefit of seed companies, and encouraged the embassies to “publicize the benefits of agbiotech as a development tool.”

Click here to read the report, “Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda”.

Monsanto was a great beneficiary of the State Department’s taxpayer-funded diplomacy, helping pave the way for the cultivation of its seeds abroad: the company appeared in 6.1 percent of the biotech cables analyzed between 2005 and 2009 from 21 countries. The embassy in South Africa even informed Monsanto and Pioneer about two recently vacated positions in the agency that provided biotech oversight, suggesting that the companies advance “qualified applicants” to fill the position. Some embassies even attempted to facilitate favorable outcomes for intellectual property law and patent issues on behalf of the company.

The cables also show extensive lobbying against in-country efforts to require labeling of GM foods. In 2008, the Hong Kong consulate “played a key role” in convincing regulators to abandon a proposed mandatory labeling requirement. One in eight cables from 42 nations between 2005 and 2009 addressed biotech-labeling requirements.

What’s more, the U.S. government is now secretly negotiating major trade deals with Europe and the countries of the Pacific Rim that would force skeptical and unwilling countries to accept biotech imports, commercialize biotech crops and prevent the labeling of GM foods.

The vast influence that Monsanto and the biotech seed industry have on our foreign affairs is just one tentacle of a beast comprised by a handful of huge corporations who wield enormous power over most food policy in the United States. My new book, Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America (which is being launched in Europe this week) deals extensively with this corporate influence over our food system.

It’s no accident that we’re here: a farm policy of “get big or get out” that has been going on for decades has only benefited big companies that are becoming more and more consolidated. They wield unprecedented power over the market, putting small and midsized farmers out of business and favoring factory farms and the cultivation of GM commodities that fuel them—GM corn and soy, which are also the cornerstone of junk foods produced and sold worldwide (fueling an obesity epidemic in America and beyond.)

Thanks, Monsanto. And thanks, State Department. Not only are you selling seeds—you’re selling out democracy.

By Patty Lovera

Read the report, “Monsanto: A Corporate Profile”

If you’re following what Monsanto’s up to these days, it’s a truly mixed bag. Today, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a farmer had infringed on Monsanto’s patent by saving biotech seeds and replanting them. The farmer, Vernon Hugh Bowman, was ordered to pay Monsanto $84,000. Thus, Monsanto’s bullying of farmers who don’t play by their rules continues.

The good news? Last Friday, the USDA announced that it would be doing environmental impact statements for crops tolerant to dicamba and 2,4-D—the chemical that Monsanto and Dow, respectively, are seeking to commercialize to deal with superweeds that have evolved to become tolerant of applications of Roundup. The industry currently estimates that at least 60 million acres of crops are now resistant to at least one herbicide.

This more rigorous review of the chemicals is good news and shows that the USDA can be pressured to do the right thing if enough people speak up.

The USDA received over 400,000 petitions against Dow’s applications to deregulate 2,4-D corn and soybeans, and 500 individual comments and 31,000 letters on Monsanto’s petition to deregulate dicamba-tolerant soybeans and cotton. Food & Water Watch supporters submitted more than 50,000 comments opposing the approval of these crops.

This delay in commercialization is a victory for people concerned about industrial agriculture. So far, the Department has failed to address the critical need for a new approach to evaluating biotech crops and the chemical use that accompanies them. To fully address all of the environmental impacts of crops engineered to withstand applications of harsher herbicides, USDA must also review the evolution of superweeds that become resistant in droves to any and all herbicides matched with these biotech crops and the danger posed to the environment, farmer and farm worker health and neighboring crops that could be damaged by drift.

Finally, stay tuned tomorrow for the release of our new report that analyzes State Department diplomatic cables between 2005 and 2009. You’ll be interested to see how many times the name Monsanto comes up in official State Department communications about biotech crops.

By Anna Ghosh

If we had to pick the most prevalent food issue of 2013 so far, the fight to get genetically engineered food labeled is probably it. Citizen-led campaigns have been successful getting legislation introduced in more than 20 states; inspired by California’s Prop 37, which suffered a narrow defeat in November after chemical and Big Food corporations poured millions into the campaign.

But consumer demand for GE labeling is not a new development. For years, polls have shown that the majority of Americans want GE food labeled, just as it is in more than 60 other countries including China, Japan and Russia.

Finally, it appears that Washington is beginning to listen. Yesterday, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) have introduced a bill to order the Food and Drug Administration to mandate the labeling of genetically engineered foods. The bill has bipartisan support with 20 combined co-sponsors between the Senate and the House.

Clearly, the statewide campaigns have played an integral role in getting Congress to pay attention to the fact that their constituents want to know whether or not they’re eating and feeding GE food to their families. And statewide initiatives continue to be critically important to ensure that consumers have the right to make informed choices about the food they buy. This is why Monsanto and its agrochemical colleagues will likely dump millions into misinformation campaigns to defeat Initiative 522 being voted on in Washington in November.

But even if Washingtonians prevail and I-522 makes GE food labels the law in their state, there will still be 49 other states where consumers will continue to be in the dark. This is why in the long run we need strong, uncompromising federal legislation to give all Americans the basic information they want about how their food was produced. Tell your Members of Congress to co-sponsor Boxer/DeFazio’s legislation if they haven’t already.

By Genna Reed

Early this week, USDA announced the availability of a petition for a new GE alfalfa, marking the 20^th GE crop currently awaiting USDA’s approval and eventual commercialization. Since the introduction of GE crops, the USDA has never denied a single petition for commercialization.

Touted as “low-lignin” to make it easier for livestock to digest, Monsanto and Forage Genetics’ new alfalfa variety will likely be stacked with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready trait (already approved for alfalfa in 2011). Throughout the petition, the companies cite the fact that “extensive review” has already been performed on GE alfalfa with the 2010 Environmental Impact Statement for Roundup Ready alfalfa.

Back then, the Environmental Impact Statement pointed to some negative economic impacts for organic and conventional alfalfa farmers, including increased costs needed to prevent contamination, reduced demand and lost markets due to contamination—which didn’t stop USDA from approving the crop. Those contamination costs are even more pronounced now. Alfalfa is an open-pollinated crop, meaning it is much more likely than corn or soybeans to contaminate nearby non-GE fields with the help of wind or insects. This crop poses special risks for organic alfalfa and for organic dairy farms whose crops may be contaminated.

Additionally, the review was performed three years ago and a lot has changed since then.

Since 2010, the number of Roundup-resistant weeds has grown from 11 to 14 and the amount of land infested with these weeds has grown from a reported 2 million acres in 2010 to industry estimates of more than 60 million acres in 2012. These numbers should raise a red flag, but Monsanto continues to petition for the introduction of more and more glyphosate-tolerant crops.

Herbicide use has escalated since the introduction of GE crops, and will only continue to grow as more of these GE crops are introduced. As the “superweed” problem worsens, the USDA must seriously consider the environmental, health and economic ramifications of this new GE alfalfa, and the agency’s overall system of blanket approvals on herbicide-tolerant GE-crops.

To weigh in on the rocket docket containing seven petitions for approval of new, herbicide-tolerant crops, sign this petition.

By Anna Ghosh

Whether you’re a full-time farmer or an indoor herb gardener, the spring planting season is in full swing. But where do the seeds that get planted come from? When we think about consolidation in the food system, retailers like Walmart or mega junk food manufacturers like PepsiCo come to mind. But the corporate consolidation and control of our food supply literally begins at its inception with seeds.

This hasn’t always been the case. As recently as 20 years ago, local, independent seed companies thrived. There used to be 300 seed companies but now there are only 150 that are independently owned and Monsanto and DuPont control most of the supply.

Farmers are dependent on a smaller number of firms for seeds, and the prices have risen sharply as the market has become more concentrated. A few major chemical and pharmaceutical giants that patent specific traits in seeds and charge fees to farmers who use their patented seeds now dominate the seed industry, which once relied on universities for most research and development.

Between 1996 and 2007, Monsanto, the largest supplier of GE seed traits, acquired more than a dozen smaller companies, and it now controls 60 percent of corn and 62.5 percent of soybean seeds and seed trait licenses in the United States.

Monsanto’s vegetable seed subsidiary, Seminis, is one of the largest seed distributors and has been acquiring seed companies since the mid-1990s. Monsanto acquired Seminis in 2005.

In addition to the many seed companies that are partially or fully owned by Monsanto and Seminis, some seed companies distribute Seminis products, along with other companies’ products. This does not mean that Seminis or Monsanto owns these companies, nor do they necessarily supply GE vegetables — Seminis has many products that are conventionally bred hybrid varieties. But they do bring Seminis products to the market.

Want to know if Monsanto owns the company you buy your seeds from? Check out our fact sheet here: http://foodandwaterwatch.org/factsheet/monsantos-seed-company-subsidiaries/

Listen to Margaret Roach give tips for sourcing ethical seeds: http://blogs.kcrw.com/goodfood/2013/04/tips-for-sourcing-ethical-seeds-for-your-edible-garden/

And get the nitty gritty details about the rise of the biotech industry and how it gets away with patenting life for profit and dominates our seed supply in Wenonah Hauter’s book, Foodopoly, here: http://www.foodopoly.org/about/

By Patty Lovera

If there is one thing you can count on with this Congress, it’s drama over money. The month of March has seen plenty of funding fights, with sequestration in the beginning of the month and an ugly process to prevent a federal government shutdown at the end.  

One of the many problems with operating this way is how many opportunities for mischief are available when Congress is dealing with a huge package of “must pass” legislation. That’s exactly what happened last week when Congress passed a “continuing resolution” to fund the federal government for the rest of the year (the President signed it into law this week). This continuing resolution was necessary because Congress did not complete the normal process for setting budgets for federal agencies and the government has been running on an extension of the previous year’s budget that was about to run out. Read the full article…

By Eve Mitchell, Food & Water Europe

Click to see a larger image.

Watching UK’s National Farmers Union (NFU) President Peter Kendall testify to the UK Parliamentary Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ inquiry into horse meat contamination of the EU beef supply on March 5, I was struck again by the inconsistencies in the NFU approach when it comes to GM animal feed.

I have three questions for the NFU:

1) In his testimony, Mr. Kendall repeated the position that short supply chains are the answer to predictable control of our meat supply and regaining consumer confidence. How does this tally with the repeated insistence that UK livestock farmers need industrial GM feed from the Americas traded through complex international commodity markets?

Much is made about the allegedly dwindling availability of non-GM soy (known in the UK as soya), but the non-GM soya industry itself paints a rather different picture. On February 26, Augusto Freire, Managing Director of Cert-ID (a company certifying non-GM soya supplies), said, “20-25% of Brazilian soybean production is free from genetic modification for the 2012/13 crop. China’s and India’s soy production is 100% Non-GMO….Estimates for 2013 are strongly up compared to earlier years due to adoption of the CERT ID and ProTerra [non-GM certification] programs by new operators in Brazil, as well as increased demand in Europe.”

In the current climate, before supply and demand reduce the cost of non-GM feed, it may well be a bit more expensive per tonne, but according to our calculations if non-GM feed costs an extra £14/tonne (about $21.00), this works out to be a mere 3p/dozen eggs (about 5 cents). Mr. Kendall asks, “Are we going to produce chickens in this country that are non-GM, but buy them in from Asia because they are 20% cheaper and they are fed on GM [feed]?” Is he perhaps confusing feed costs with the poor animal husbandry that keeps meat from many non-European factory farms cheap?

We also need to be careful in working out how much animal feed is actually GM – any amount of GM feed comingled with an otherwise non-GM shipment means the entire quantity, and all subsequent feed bags, are labelled GM. This does not mean that feed is anything like 100% GM, and in fact the bulk of any animal feed is probably non-GM.

2) If, as Mr. Kendall says, UK farmers need “confidence” in the market to invest and improve UK beef production levels, why does this logic not apply to the farmers in Brazil already growing non-GM soya but unable to risk the costs of certification without confirmed advance orders from the EU to ensure they gets a return?

Augusto Freire notes, “An additional volume of Brazilian soy meal representing 1.5 million metric tonnes of soybeans could have been certified [as non-GM] if EU buyers had expressed their demand early in the year.” The non-GM soya is there, and more can be grown, we just need to say we want it. It’s not hard.

Consumer demand should boost confidence enough to take this step. A 2010 GfK/NOP poll showed fewer than 40% of supermarket shoppers were aware that imported GM animal feed fuels British factory farming, and 89% wanted these products to be clearly labelled. In January of this year the UK Food Standards Agency published research showing again that two-thirds of respondents want all use of GM feed to be labelled. Even among those undecided about GM food and crops respondents felt “some form of labelling should be in place to help them determine GM content and avoid choosing foods containing GM if they so wish”. Overall there is a clear indication this need to identify GM use applies to animal products in particular. People don’t want GM feed in the food chain, and they want clear labels to help them see where it is – or isn’t.

3) I completely agree that there is, as Mr. Kendall told the Committee, “too much focus on price” in the food industry. If this is the case, why are industrial crops feeding industrial megafarm production to produce cheap meat worthy of such vocal support?

True, there are vested interests on both sides of the discussion, and there are rumours that Indian soya is less desirable than Brazilian. Overall we’d be far better off moving away from the industrial meat model. Yet this does not explain why supermarkets can’t do their part in delivering what the market demands now by placing clear orders for non-GM soya (or non-GM fed products) to give Brazilian farmers the confidence they need to grow and certify non-GM crops. The NFU position invokes the market, but goes directly against the basics of supply and demand. The more non-GM feed is demanded, the more will be supplied, and the costs will come down—unless vested interests interfere with the market. Large supermarkets and dairies in other parts of Europe seem to be able to manage it, so it is very difficult to see why the UK is different.

Mr. Kendall told the NFU 2013 conference, “Today I want to talk about a pact with the great British consumer to get things changed…We now need supermarkets to stop scouring the world for the cheapest products they can find and start sourcing high quality, traceable, product from farmers here at home…That may mean more dedicated supply groups. It will certainly mean longer-term thinking and a shorter supply chain.” We agree, and we’re here to help.

Mr. Kendall, if you truly “Do not want food safety and standards to be politicised,” as you told the Committee, why do you say GM skepticism is “directly comparable to Nazi book-burning in the 1930’s”? Why do you not support your members in providing what the market clearly wants?

The situation with regard to GM animal feed looks increasingly like lucrative supply lines controlled by shippers and importers, not farmers, attempting to force an end to non-GM supplies on an unwilling market. The NFU position, which wedges farmers uncomfortably between their market and these vested interests, remains very difficult to understand. The sooner the NFU applies the logic it uses in the meat chain to the feed chain, the sooner consumers will begin to regain confidence in our food.

Mr. Kendall also told your 2013 conference consumers should demand answers from the people they buy from. We agree European consumers can and should get what they want.

This action is a good first step.

By Adam Scow

Despite the narrow loss of Proposition 37 last November, the movement to label genetically engineered foods in California is stronger than ever. A new statewide coalition has emerged to continue and grow the movement to win labeling in California. Coalition participants include a wide range of organizations at the forefront of food issues including the Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network, Consumers Union, California State Grange and dozens of other organizations. The coalition is considering advancing state legislation and revisiting the possibility of another ballot initiative in the near future. Stay up-to-date on the lastest by following us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/FoodWaterWatchCalifornia

The looming threat of the approval of GE salmon by the Food & Drug Administration has also galvanized local activists across California to petition the agency to not allow the potentially dangerous salmon to reach our plates. If approved, GE salmon would be the first “transgenic” animal allowed into our food supply. It’s also unlikely that it would have to be labeled, so you might not even know you’re eating it. Recognizing these threats, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted to approve a resolution to oppose FDA approval of the salmon and we were pleased to testify and support its passage, introduced by Councilmember Paul Koretz.

Video courtesy of Citizens for Health

Pennsylvania Senator Daylin Leach speaks, with dozens of supporters of his GE food labeling bill, on the main steps of the Capitol rotunda.

By Liam Hart

On March 12, we took an important step in the fight for GE food labeling here in Pennsylvania. Food & Water Watch joined State Senator Daylin Leach in Harrisburg to publicly introduce legislation that would require the labeling of GE foods in PA. Over a dozen supporters of the bill stood behind Senator Leach on the main steps of the Capitol rotunda as he addressed members of the media, as well as other supporters.

Senator Leach was not the only one to speak on behalf of the bill. Brian Snyder, executive director of PASA (Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture), and Roman Stoltzfoos of Springwood Farm pointed out that the GE issue is not only important to food consumers, but also to food producers. Sam Bernhardt, FWW’s Pennsylvania organizer, emphasized the broad base of support that the bill has across Pennsylvania. In fact, our coalition includes over 70 organizations that come from every corner of the state. The support comes from food coops, organics retailers, farmers, student groups, advocacy groups and others. Fortunately, this support is also reflected in the co-sponsorship of the bill. We currently have a dozen co-sponsors, representing both Republicans and Democrats from all over the state.

Following the press conference, some of the bill’s advocates answered questions for the media while we had meetings with staffers from several other senators’ offices to discuss their positions on the legislation. These meetings resulted in the addition of at least one co-sponsor for the bill, and we are optimistic that we will gain more support in the coming days.

Read earlier field notes from the Pennsylvania campaign to label GE food.

Please join us in telling Pennsylvania legislators to make labels for GE food the law!

Liam is an intern at FWW’s Philadelphia office.