Community Resilience, Self-Reliance, Renewable Energy & Cooperation
GMO Traceability
GMO Traceability - Please forward
I haven't seen the term GMO Traceability used yet, but I think we should start using the correct agricultural buzzwords if we believe we have the right to know what is in the food we eat and put in our kids' mouths. For many people who eat, knowing whether food contains Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) is important.
GMO Traceability is something that I think is extremely reasonable for consumers to demand considering that traceability is so important these days. We're not even talking about the notion of something as difficult and intrusive to implement as say, forcing millions to register each backyard chicken they keep afterall. We are simply talking about keeping track of who breeds, farms, and sells GMO's, and accurately labeling food that contains them.
Since we have been informed that traceability is so important for the safety our food supply, lets make sure if we are going to have it, we start with GMO's, which are already able to be tested, identified, and therefore traced. This is indeed low hanging fruit/vegetable/fish/spider/goat.
Since GMO's have the proven capability to contaminate the environment via the wind and other methods and cause severe economic damage to farmers not interested in using them, and since they could possibly have negative health effects that are not clear at this point, GMO Traceability would simply allow consumers the freedom to make informed choices. To be against GMO Traceability, one would have to be against consumer freedom and choice.
Farmers that are justified in being worried about severe damage to their livelihoods from GMOs are beginning to put their GMO farming neighbors on notice that they will pass these very real damages and associated costs back to GMO producers, which is only fair.
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/
Risks to these non GMO farmers are real and these additional risks forced on non-GMO farmers by GMO producers need to be considered and managed today, unfortunately.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601127&sid=adGubJZ21Uzo
Potential risks to consumers from GMOs is also a widespread concern, but the true impacts of GMO crops on human health and the environment is not yet fully understood. One reason is because GMOs are so new. Another reason is because the companies that produce them are making absolutely sure they have complete and accurate data before they release it to the public because they fully understand that transparency and treating your customers with respect is what people deserve.
http://permaculture.org.au/2010/02/10/monsanto-pulls-gm-corn-amid-s...
One of the most important ways to manage these new real and potential risks non GMO farmers and consumers now face is to ensure we have GMO Traceability, which includes compulsory public registration of GMO growers.
We need a comprehensive database of GM producers and suppliers to ensure GMO Traceability because the threat of contamination, either unintentionally or by intentional terrorist act is real.
All sectors of agriculture, big or small, who use GMO's stand to be harmed financially by bad actors who don't care about damaging the livelihoods of non-GMO farmers and possibly impacting human health and the environment.
Nobody in agriculture would promote the reckless idea that "GMOs are already in the environment, so as long as I profit, I don't care about my neighbors or consumers." Because of the prevailing ethical attitude, we can expext a high degree of support and cooperation from GMO producers for GMO Traceability.
For example, past supporters of NAIS who grow GMO's or have neighbors who do will surely be the first to jump on board and support GMO Traceability for many of the same reasons that they supported NAIS.
GMO producers are extremely proud of what they produce and have a high degree of trust and confidence in the companies that provide them, so high percentages of voluntary premise registration for GMO Traceability can be expected. Additionally, organizations who have already taken money in the form of cooperative agreements for promoting NAIS will have the required infrastructure, training, interest, aptitude, and abilities to make GMO Traceability easy to implement.
Privacy issues should be non-existent because GMO's have been proven safe, effective, and efficient. More importantly, GMO producers have the full loyalty, support, friendship, and backing of the GMO seed companies, afterall.
An additional benefit of GMO Traceability for the both the agricultural community and consumers alike is that GMO producers would finally be able to get the premiums they deserve for these high demand products. Up until now, the vast number of consumers out there who have been demanding GMOs in their food have been frustratingly unable to source these products due to inaccurate labeling. GMO Traceability would put an end to this unfortunate situation.
'GMO Traceability' is a win-win for everyone. Ask for it by name.
Mike Murphy
Farm Stories,
http://www.farmstories.org
I haven't seen the term GMO Traceability used yet, but I think we should start using the correct agricultural buzzwords if we believe we have the right to know what is in the food we eat and put in our kids' mouths. For many people who eat, knowing whether food contains Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) is important.
GMO Traceability is something that I think is extremely reasonable for consumers to demand considering that traceability is so important these days. We're not even talking about the notion of something as difficult and intrusive to implement as say, forcing millions to register each backyard chicken they keep afterall. We are simply talking about keeping track of who breeds, farms, and sells GMO's, and accurately labeling food that contains them.
Since we have been informed that traceability is so important for the safety our food supply, lets make sure if we are going to have it, we start with GMO's, which are already able to be tested, identified, and therefore traced. This is indeed low hanging fruit/vegetable/fish/spider/goat.
Since GMO's have the proven capability to contaminate the environment via the wind and other methods and cause severe economic damage to farmers not interested in using them, and since they could possibly have negative health effects that are not clear at this point, GMO Traceability would simply allow consumers the freedom to make informed choices. To be against GMO Traceability, one would have to be against consumer freedom and choice.
Farmers that are justified in being worried about severe damage to their livelihoods from GMOs are beginning to put their GMO farming neighbors on notice that they will pass these very real damages and associated costs back to GMO producers, which is only fair.
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/
Risks to these non GMO farmers are real and these additional risks forced on non-GMO farmers by GMO producers need to be considered and managed today, unfortunately.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601127&sid=adGubJZ21Uzo
Potential risks to consumers from GMOs is also a widespread concern, but the true impacts of GMO crops on human health and the environment is not yet fully understood. One reason is because GMOs are so new. Another reason is because the companies that produce them are making absolutely sure they have complete and accurate data before they release it to the public because they fully understand that transparency and treating your customers with respect is what people deserve.
http://permaculture.org.au/2010/02/10/monsanto-pulls-gm-corn-amid-s...
One of the most important ways to manage these new real and potential risks non GMO farmers and consumers now face is to ensure we have GMO Traceability, which includes compulsory public registration of GMO growers.
We need a comprehensive database of GM producers and suppliers to ensure GMO Traceability because the threat of contamination, either unintentionally or by intentional terrorist act is real.
All sectors of agriculture, big or small, who use GMO's stand to be harmed financially by bad actors who don't care about damaging the livelihoods of non-GMO farmers and possibly impacting human health and the environment.
Nobody in agriculture would promote the reckless idea that "GMOs are already in the environment, so as long as I profit, I don't care about my neighbors or consumers." Because of the prevailing ethical attitude, we can expext a high degree of support and cooperation from GMO producers for GMO Traceability.
For example, past supporters of NAIS who grow GMO's or have neighbors who do will surely be the first to jump on board and support GMO Traceability for many of the same reasons that they supported NAIS.
GMO producers are extremely proud of what they produce and have a high degree of trust and confidence in the companies that provide them, so high percentages of voluntary premise registration for GMO Traceability can be expected. Additionally, organizations who have already taken money in the form of cooperative agreements for promoting NAIS will have the required infrastructure, training, interest, aptitude, and abilities to make GMO Traceability easy to implement.
Privacy issues should be non-existent because GMO's have been proven safe, effective, and efficient. More importantly, GMO producers have the full loyalty, support, friendship, and backing of the GMO seed companies, afterall.
An additional benefit of GMO Traceability for the both the agricultural community and consumers alike is that GMO producers would finally be able to get the premiums they deserve for these high demand products. Up until now, the vast number of consumers out there who have been demanding GMOs in their food have been frustratingly unable to source these products due to inaccurate labeling. GMO Traceability would put an end to this unfortunate situation.
'GMO Traceability' is a win-win for everyone. Ask for it by name.
Mike Murphy
Farm Stories,
http://www.farmstories.org
-
Comment by Alan on March 12, 2010 at 4:13pm -
USA MUST FOLLOW THE LEAD OF INDIA (or perish!). Indian farmers and leaders are successfully fighting Monsanto and other GMO pioneers and are preventing the destruction of their agricultural base. Wherever Monsanto does make inroads, thousands of India farmers commit suicide in the economic ruins that inevitably follow Monsanto and GMO wherever they go.
India bans some GMO crops while biotech illegally plants others
By Rady Ananda
2/23 Update: India’s Prime Minister voids GMO ban: Sets up pro-GMO committee to vote this Saturday
India’s battles over genetically modified organisms (GMO) intensified this month as both sides maneuvered to promote or resist their proliferation. Mediating the debate, at least for now, is India’s Minister of Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh.
On February 10, Ramesh ordered a moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified brinjal (Bt-brinjal), a ubiquitous eggplant with 2,500 natural varieties. The Ministry seeks long term safety studies before lifting the ban.
Expressing concern for food sovereignty, Ramesh noted in his Decision on Commercialisation of Bt-Brinjal:
“Very serious fears have been raised in many quarters on the possibility of Monsanto controlling our food chain if Bt-brinjal is approved. ¶11
“Dr. David Schubert of the Salk Institute of Biological Studies, USA …. says that Bt-brinjal … will increase social and political dependence on private companies….” ¶17
“Eminent government scientists have confirmed to me that a vast proportion of Bt-cotton seed currently being used in India is controlled directly and indirectly by Monsanto.” (Footnote 4)
“As a country, we must learn to derive full benefit of Monsanto’s expertise and capabilities, without jeopardising national sovereignty…” ¶11
Then, on Feb. 15, the Agriculture Minister confirmed that an unapproved genetically modified crop – Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant (HT) cotton – was commercially farmed illegally in three states for two crop seasons.
In response, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) moved on Feb. 18 to require registration of all GMO seeds. This will enable civil action against biotech firms should unapproved crops be sown or sold, inside sources told Business Standard. (Another decision Ramesh made on Feb. 10 was to partly change the name of the GEAC from “Approval” to “Appraisal.”)
Meanwhile, a bill has been introduced to usurp approval authority from the Enviro-Ministry, placing it under the purview of the Ministry of Science and Technology, which is mandated to promote biotechnology.
Groups reject stealth bill to usurp approval authority
South Against Genetic Engineering (SAGE), a coalition of over 100 groups in India, received the proposed bill anonymously, which is still marked “SECRET.” Under the Official Secrets Act, such documents are often not disclosed while being reworked. SAGE issued an alert that the moratorium on Bt-brinjal is being subverted by the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, 2009 (BRAI).
One safety concern is GMO contamination of natural fields, which is widespread in the US. In 2006, for example, Bayer CropScience ‘negligently’ released GM rice in the US, which contaminated at least 30% of the natural rice supply. Over 6,000 claims have been filed, with damages of $2 million awarded in December and, in a more recent case, $1.5 million.
Neither Bayer nor the USDA can explain the contamination. Indians are jusifiably concerned that Bt-brinjal will contaminate natural crops, thus destroying biodiversity.
Dr. Vandana Shiva, a GMO resistance leader in India, also rejects BRAI. In Developers Cannot Be Regulators, a statement released to Food Freedom, she writes:
“BRAI is the naked attempt by the Biotechnology Department (within the Ministry of Science and Technology) to appropriate to itself the work of regulating biotechnology in addition to promoting biotechnology.”
BRAI is the latest incarnation of the National Biotechnology Regulatory Bill, 2008, which she also opposed. Shiva advises that:
“BRAI … is a recipe for deepening the regulatory chaos as well as deepening the crisis created by conflict of interest issues related to genetic engineering.”
India already has strong laws that address biosafety regulation: the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; and within the 1986 Environmental Protection Act (EPA), the 1989 ‘Rules for the Manufacture, Use / Import / Export and storage of hazardous micro-organisms / genetically engineered organisms or cells.’ Dr. Shiva explains:
“The substantial parts of what the BRAI will cover are already covered by the EPA rules…. The proposed BRAI is in total denial of existing law. The proposed law pretends we do not have a law under the EPA…. The BRAI is an attempt to dismantle the 1989 Law, and replace it with a law for fast track promotion of GMOs.”
Author of Corrupt to the Core, Dr. Shiv Chopra, a Canadian-Indian microbiologist who led the fight against Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in Canada, smells a conspiracy. Currently on a speaking tour in India, he advises in an email that BRAI is the primary subject of his talks:
“I, too, am strongly opposed to it. If accepted, [BRAI] will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.
“BRAI is designed to preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes.”
In halting deployment of Bt-brinjal, India’s Environment Minister noted the need for “an independent National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority… with integrity and impartiality…. In the absence of such a body, arguments that have been made on the limitations of the GEAC cannot be ignored.” ¶14
Many had questioned the decision of the GEAC to refuse several independent studies suggested by an expert panel, prior to recommending Bt-brinjal for approval last October.
“While there may be a debate on the nature and number of tests that need to be carried out for establishing human safety, it is incontrovertible that the tests have been carried out by the Bt-brinjal developers themselves and not in any independent lab. This does raise legitimate doubts on the reliability of the tests….” ¶10
Ramesh solicited opinions from all sectors of society, and from other nations. His 19-page decision, by the way, is a fascinating read, exemplifying transparent governance and a thorough hearing from all stakeholders.
Passing approval authority from him to an agency legally mandated to promote biotechnology – as BRAI proposes – will destroy any rational basis for confidence the public can have in approved GMOs.
Much thanks to Sheila Parks, Ed.D., Claudia Woodward-Rice, Kavitha Kuruganti, and others, for their suggestions and/or contributions to this report.
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/biotech-battle-escalate...
Comment
© 2013 Created by Melissa Campbell.
You need to be a member of Transition Missouri to add comments!
Join Transition Missouri