GMO
Howard Vlieger has done his own on-the-farm testing on GMOs. He grew GMO Bt corn side by side with the isoline (the original corn type that was used to create the GMO) for 2 years in the 1990's and lost money on the GMO corn both years. He also conducted a feeding test with his cattle. When given the choice between the Bt corn and conventional corn, his cattle chose conventional. But this is not a scientific experiment. Read about the brick wall that gets hit when trying to set up an independent scientific study on GMOs and/or Roundup here:
READ: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15027
Supreme Court Denies Family Farmers the Right to Self-Defense from Monsanto Abuse
Posted by Food_Democracy_Now on January 13, 2014
on 29 August 2013.
Contrary to claims by Grist's food writer Nathanael Johnson, access for researchers to GM seed and the non-GM parent lines to carry out independent studies is still highly problematic.
Johnson has variously claimed that the inability of independent researchers to access the necessary materials to carry out GM research is largely an illusory problem or a problem of the past.
http://grist.org/food/genetically-modified-seed-research-whats-locked-and-what-isnt/
http://grist.org/food/dodging-argument-bot-crossfire-to-revisit-some-gm-research-controversies/
http://grist.org/food/is-extremism-in-defense-of-gm-food-a-vice/
The necessary materials for such studies are the GM crop and its non-GM parent variety, grown side-by-side in the same conditions, at the same time, to minimize variation caused by environmental factors.
Here is a reply to Johnson's claims from Howard Vlieger, co-author and coordinator of Dr Judy Carman's toxicology study on pigs, which found GM feed caused severe stomach inflammation and heavier uteri.
Johnson had criticised Dr Carman's study for not using the non-GM parent varieties as the comparators to the GM crops.
http://grist.org/food/is-extremism-in-defense-of-gm-food-a-vice/
Howard Vlieger has submitted his response as a letter to the editor of Grist and on the magazine's comments thread.
Incidentally, Prof GE Seralini, who led the 2012 study that found GM maize and tiny amounts of Roundup caused severe health effects in rats fed over their lifetime, has also spoken about the problems his team experienced in accessing the GM crop and the non-GM parent variety for his study.
Prof Seralini and his team were unwilling to agree to the restrictive conditions placed on them by GM seed companies. The search for a supplier that would not compromise his scientific independence took him over a year.
http://gmoseralini.org/portfolio-items/seralini-roundup-and-gm-maize-study-video/
---
---
Letter to the editor, Grist
Howard Vlieger
24 August, 2013
Nathanael Johnson's comments about the ability to access the genetics for research purposes are inaccurate. He makes it sound as if the researchers at our land grant universities are waiting with open arms to conduct research on GMO crops and or glyphosate. He makes it sound as if the companies that develop GM crops are eager for full disclosure and testing of GM crops. This is not the case, based on my experience, which has been repeated more than once in different parts of the country. When we approach the land grant researchers with the funding in hand to test a specific hypothesis on a GM crop or how glyphosate may be affecting a GM crop, the reaction is the same every time. This is what we have been told by the researcher(s): “It would be very unhealthy for the career of any researcher to get involved with any research that may shed negative light on a GM crop or glyphosate”.
I have been active in studying GMOs since 1994 and researching GMOs from the farmer perspective since 1997. As a seed salesman for a seed corn company I have conducted side by side research of BT corn with identical isogenic lines in my field 2 years in a row in the 1990s. The seed was provided by the seed company without need for any signature of a technology agreement. I have never signed a technology agreement with any company that holds a patent on seed. In 1997 it was not illegal to conduct on-farm research comparing [GM] traited seed to its conventional counterpart. Today a bag of patented traited seed cannot even be unloaded on a dealer’s property unless the dealer has signed a technology agreement with the patent holder of the seed. That technology agreement prohibits any research without the written consent of the patent holder. The BT corn caused us to lose money (an average of $58 dollars per acre) both years that we tested it. We also conducted a test with the grain and our cattle. When given a choice between the conventional corn and the BT corn they refused to eat the BT corn.
While this was not considered a scientific study, on the farm we have to recognize facts from a common sense perspective more than a scientific perspective. When we lose money we try to avoid making that mistake twice. As a result of those early experiences you might say that we have paid closer attention than some. We have witnessed many negative side effects in crop and livestock production relative to GMO crops and glyphosate herbicides. Thankfully this has led me to connect with many qualified researchers from around the world.
The protocol for our pig study was reviewed and data evaluated by scientists from universities and research institutes. The controls were much more closely adhered to than in many industry studies.
Isn’t it interesting that every scientist or researcher that conducts a study that documents a problem with a GMO crop is labeled as an extremist or a junk scientist?
This is the view from where I stand, at ground level.
Sincerely, Howard Vlieger, co-author and primary coordinator of the pig study that Johnson criticised.
Refusal to Reinstate OSGATA et al v. Monsanto Prevents Farmers From Protecting Themselves Beyond Partial Court of Appeals Victory.
Washington, D.C. – January 13, 2013 - The U.S. Supreme Court today issued a decision in the landmark federal lawsuit, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto. Farmers were denied the right to argue their case in court and gain protection from potential abuse by the agrichemical and genetic engineering giant, Monsanto. Additionally, the high court decision dashes the hopes of family farmers who sought the opportunity to prove in court Monsanto’s genetically engineered seed patents are invalid.
"While the Supreme Court's decision to not give organic and other non-GMO farmers the right to seek preemptive protection from Monsanto's patents at this time is disappointing, it should not be misinterpreted as meaning that Monsanto has the right to bring such suits,” said Daniel Ravicher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) and lead counsel to the plaintiffs in OSGATA et al v. Monsanto. “Indeed, in light of the Court of Appeals decision, Monsanto may not sue any contaminated farmer for patent infringement if the level of contamination is less than one percent. For farmers contaminated by more than one percent, perhaps a day will come to address whether Monsanto's patents may be asserted against them. We are confident that if the courts ever hear such a case, they will rule for the non-GMO farmers."
Farmers had sought Court protection under the Declaratory Judgment Act that should they become the innocent victims of contamination by Monsanto’s patented gene-splice technology they could not perversely be sued for patent infringement.
“The Supreme Court failed to grasp the extreme predicament family farmers find themselves in,” said Maine organic seed farmer Jim Gerritsen, President of lead plaintiff OSGATA. “The Court of Appeals agreed our case had merit. However, the safeguards they ordered are insufficient to protect our farms and our families. This high court which gave corporations the ability to patent life forms in 1980, and under Citizens United in 2010 gave corporations the power to buy their way to election victories, has now in 2014 denied farmers the basic right of protecting themselves from the notorious patent bully Monsanto.”
The historic lawsuit was filed in 2011 in Federal District Court in Manhattan. The large plaintiff group numbers 83 individual American and Canadian family farmers, independent seed companies and agricultural organizations whose combined memberships total over 1 million citizens, including many non-GMO farmers and over 25% of North America’s certified organic farmers.
“The Appellate Court decision could leave Canadian farmers out in the cold because their protection may not extend to Canada at all,” said Saskatchewan organic grain farmer Arnold Taylor, a member of plaintiff member Canadian Organic Growers (COG). “Like many Canadian farmers, we sell crop into the United States and can therefore be liable to claims of patent infringement by Monsanto.”
In a complicated ruling issued in June 2013 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., American farmers were handed a partial victory when the three justices agreed with the farmers’ assertion that contamination by Monsanto was inevitable. The justices ordered Monsanto not to sue American farmers whose fields were contaminated with trace amounts of patented material, which the Court defined as 1%.
In a related situation, Canadian soybean farmer Stephen Webster of Ontario experienced just how abusively Monsanto treats innocent contamination victims. Through no fault of his own Webster, who farms with his elderly father, had his 2012 identify-preserved (IP) non-GMO soybean crop contaminated by Monsanto’s patented genetically engineered seed. Their soybeans were ruined for export to specialty markets in Japan. “First Monsanto claimed we had too many bees and that we were at fault for the contaminated crop,” said Webster. “Then they threatened to run up $100,000 in legal bills that we would have to pay.” Tragically, Webster’s story is the norm in farm country, with Monsanto using its extreme economic power to silence family farmers even before they can legally defend themselves.
Notably, none of the plaintiffs are customers of Monsanto. None have signed licensing agreements with Monsanto. The plaintiffs do not want Monsanto’s seed and they do not want Monsanto’s gene-spliced technology and have sought legal protection from significant economic harm to their businesses and way of life.
“We have a fourth generation farm,” said organic dairy farmer and plaintiff Rose Marie Burroughs of California Cloverleaf Farms. “Monsanto cannot be trusted. Their refusal to provide a binding legal covenant not to sue our fellow farmers would make anyone wonder, what are their real motives? GMO contamination levels can easily rise above 1% and then we would have zero protection from a costly and burdensome lawsuit.”
Significant contamination events, including Starlink corn and LibertyLink rice, have already cost farmers and the food companies nearly $2 billion dollars. In the past year alone, the discovery of Monsanto’s illegal GMO wheat in an Oregon farmer’s field and GMO alfalfa in Washington state sent foreign markets, where GMOs are not wanted, reeling. In both instances farmers’ economic livelihoods were put at risk as buyers in foreign markets refused to buy the GMO contaminated crops.
“If Monsanto can patent seeds for financial gain, they should be forced to pay for contaminating a farmer’s field, not be allowed to sue them. Once again, America’s farmers have been denied justice, while Monsanto’s reign of intimidation is allowed to continue in rural America,” said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, a grassroots advocacy group based in Iowa and a plaintiff in the case.
“Monsanto has effectively gotten away with stealing the world’s seed heritage and abusing farmers for the flawed nature of their patented seed technology. This is an outrage of historic proportions and will not stand,” said Murphy.
GMO Bulls Now A Reality
Not Cool, great reason to grow Organic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmkj5gq1cQU
Due to genetic selection and experiments, the Belgian Blue is a humongous species of Bull, packed with muscles and meat.
What is hidden from the general public, is the fact that these Bulls are Genetically Modified.
Their uninhibited muscle growth presents a lot of health hazards, calves can develop enlarged tongues and stiff legs which make it difficult for them to eat and move, leading to an early and painful death.
GMOs continue to infiltrate our grocery stores and still don't require any special labelling!
adguk-blog.com/2013/08/monstrous-gmo-bulls-now-reality.html