Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Selling out to Big Ag
How your college is selling out to Big Ag
By Tom Philpott
Mother Jones
May 09, 2012
Major universities have become de facto R&D and marketing outposts for companies like Monsanto
Last week, the University of Illinois’ College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences (ACES) in Champaign-Urbana made a momentous announcement: it has accepted a $250,000 grant from genetically modified seed/agrichemical giant Monsanto to create an endowed chair for the “Agricultural Communications Program” it runs with the College of Communications.
The university’s press release quotes Monsanto’s vice president of technology communications giving a taste of its vision for the investment:
A cynic might translate that statement this way: In order to maintain our highly profitable and hotly contested business model, we’ll need a new generation of PR professionals to construct and disseminate our marketing message.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Don’t ask, don’t tell?
Don’t ask, don’t tell?
by Sam Ross-Brown
Utne Reader
May 08, 2012
Just over half of Americans say they wouldn’t buy a food they knew was genetically modified. Another 87 percent say they want to see GM labels at the grocery store. That’s one reason why Connecticut’s recent failure to require labeling is so surprising, says Treehugger. Now, genetically-modified food is controversial among consumers, farmers, and scientists, and it’s difficult to find a consensus on GM benefits and risks. The World Health Organization, for instance, while noting some potential human health hazards like gene transfer, maintains GM safety is a case-by-case issue.
But the biggest opposition in Connecticut didn’t come from scientists. The reason the bill failed appears to be pressure from Monsanto, which reportedly threatened state legislators with legal action. This was the same tactic that got a GM labeling provision thrown out in Vermont last month, as the one thing cash-strapped states don’t need is a big lawsuit.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Lawmakers urge labels
Lawmakers urge labels for genetically modified food
By Ken Dixon
Greenwich Time
May 05, 2012
HARTFORD — A bill linking Connecticut to a pending referendum in California that would require the labeling of genetically engineered foods is in a race with the legislative adjournment date later this week.
Lawmakers pushing for the so-called genetically modified organisms (GMO) legislation say it’s important to allow people to decide for themselves whether they want to purchase the controversial products.
But House leaders are concerned over the possible lengthy debate on the constitutionality of requiring the labeling, and making a Connecticut law dependent on action in another state.
“We’re trying to get it on the `go’ list,” said Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, co-chairman of the legislative Environment Committee, who this year has made the labeling issue one of the major goals of his final year in the General Assembly.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
California initiative
California groups push for vote on GMO food labels
By Carey Gillam
Reuters
May 02, 2012
A California initiative to require labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients appeared headed for the ballot in November after organizers said on Wed nesday they had gathered nearly 1 million signatures in favor of the measure.
The hotly contested proposal is similar to measures being pushed in other U.S. states and at the federal level as GMO opponents demand more transparency in food products.
The California measure would require labeling of foods made with biotech corn, soybeans, canola, or other biotech crops to specify that they were “produced with genetic engineering.”
Friday, April 27, 2012
GM Soy and pig health
GM Soy linked to health damage in pigs — a Danish Dossier
By GM-Free Cymru (Wales)
April 27, 2012
Introduction
A Danish farming newspaper has caused quite a stir by devoting a sizeable part of its 13 April edition to the discoveries by pig farmer Ib Borup Pedersen that GM soy has a damaging effect both on his animals and on his farming profitability. On the front page of the paper there was a lead story under the headline “Pig farmer reaps gains from GMO-free soy”. On a sidebar the paper referred to Mr Pedersen’s contention that DDT and Thalidomide were minor problems when set alongside GMOs and Glyphosate. In an Editorial Comment on page 2, the paper argued that it would be grossly irresponsible for the authorities to ignore or ridicule the discoveries made by the farmer in his pig farming operations, and it congratulated the authorities for commissioning a new study designed to determine whether stomach lesions and other effects might be associated with GM soy; in the study 100 animals will be fed with non-GM soy and 100 with GM soy in their diets.