GM Foods // Current

Study: genetically engineered food: potential threat to fertility

How many studies will have to be performed to get GM ingredients listed on labels in the US? How much transgenic contamination? Environmental toxification? Where are the independent studies that conclude that GE foods unequiviocably do not contribute to allergies, diabetes, thyroid conditions, cancer, Morgellon's Disease, early puberty in children fed GM soy formula, and other diseases that have been on the rise since GM foods hit the market? Why is Monsanto and the FDA fighting consumer disclosure which is a democratic right of the people if these foods are safe?

Personally, I do not believe that GM foods are benign. I believe there are health effects to them that we are not being told about because it would hurt the profits of Monsanto and other agrbusiness /chemical/ poison making companies.The majority of the world is against genetic modification of food. The only ones really pushing it are governments and world organizations like the World Bank that seek to make profits. There is no real need for it except profit motive by chemical companies looking to exploit the poor and now the climate and food crises with their ethanol.

Yet, the U.S. government in collusion with Monsanto allows it to be sold in our country without disclosure to the public. I think that if labelling is not to be allowed on foods in this country containing their GM ingredients that there needs to be a MAJOR boycott in this country of all companies that sell any corn and soy processed foods. They then need to feel it where it will hurt THEM the most until they disclose the source of their ingredients. I am tired as a citizen of having to deal with the secrecy of a government that cares more about their own profits and political cronyism than the health and wellbeing of the American people and the environment. ANY food that is also a registered pesticide is not something I want my child or myself to consume.
____
From the article:

A study published today by the Austrian government identified serious health threats of genetically engineered (GE) crops. In one of the very few long-term feeding studies ever conducted with GE crops, the fertility of mice fed with GE maize was found to be severely impaired, with fewer offspring being produced than by mice fed on natural crops. Considering the severity of the potential threat to human health and reproduction, Greenpeace is demanding a recall of all GE food and crops from the market, worldwide.

The study, sponsored by the Austrian Ministries for Agriculture and Health, was presented today at a scientific seminar in Vienna, Austria. Prof. Dr. Jürgen Zentek, Professor for Veterinary Medicine at the University of Vienna and lead author of the study, summarised the findings: Mice fed with GE maize had less offspring in the third and fourth generations, and these difference were statistically significant. Mice fed with non-GE maize reproduced more efficiently. This effect can be attributed to the differences in the food source.
snip
Owned by Monsanto, the GE maize variety tested in this study is tolerant to a herbicide and resistant to certain insect pests. It has been approved for planting and food use in a variety of countries, including the US, Argentina, Japan, Philippines and South Africa. In Mexico and the European Union(1), it is approved for food and feed use.

"This study is yet another example that the food and feed safety of GE crops and food cannot be guaranteed. The reproductive toxicity of this GE maize was a totally unexpected result, but regulators around the world had considered this GE maize variety as safe as non-GE varieties - a potentially devastating error," said Dr. van Aken.How many studies will have to be performed to get GM ingredients listed on labels in the US? How much transgenic contamination?... more

JanforGore
added this

11 responses

7 days ago

Purple tomatoes fight cancer

Cancer-prone mice fed the modified fruit lived significantly longer than animals fed a standard diet with and without regular... more

urlspotter
added this

0 responses

23 days ago

Codex Alimentarius, food, and Monsanto

The recent news regarding the FDA and irradiation of foods and their decision regarding genetically modified animals and crops is... more

JanforGore
added this

13 responses

1 month ago

Genetically modified crops' days may be numbered

Pressure from the president of the European Commission has not succeeded in advancing the cause of transgenic crops. In spite of... more

JanforGore
added this

24 responses

1 month ago

The Future of Food - trailer

This movie changed the way I looked at food. It is worth every minute. Andrew Kimbrell is amazing!

wholefreespirit
added this

4 responses

2 months ago

Don't believe the GMO apologists

Avarice and greed in the name of exploiting a food crisis brought on not by food shortages, but high prices of oil and feed and political corruption propagated by the very governments and agencies like the World Bank that are now pushing GM foods that are untested. Notice a pattern here?

From the article:

Arguments about genetic modification, often wrongly characterised as science versus irrational nature-worshippers, have lost none of their passion. On one side are those who yearn for simple, high-tech solutions to complex problems. Against GM, there are ecological realities and scientific evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that farming took a wrong turn after the last war, with widespread use of artificial nitrogen fertilisers and sprays.

In Britain, we lost up to 95 per cent of our ancient woodlands, flower meadows, hedges and wildlife and saw massive losses of farms and farm workers' jobs. Farming became more oil-dependent. Our food lost vitamins, taste and diversity and our diet became unhealthy.

As the environmental and human cost of industrial farming became harder to deny, along came a new miracle cure ; genetic engineering. Twenty years ago, GM promised unbelievable wonders ; fruit that would never freeze, crops needing no fertiliser or sprays and food with vitamins and medicines engineered in. All food would soon be GM. Geneticists would engineer anything we wanted, taking a gene from a fish here, a pig there, adding a bacteria gene and maybe a bit of a virus.

The greatest coup by the GM companies, and their greatest scientific fraud, was to ensure no GM food had to be tested for safety. In America, they established the concept of "substantial equivalence" which means that if a GM crop looks like its non-GM equivalent and grows like it, then it is it no safety testing is needed before people eat it. GM maize could have added virus and antibiotic resistance genes, and a gene that makes it express an insecticide in every leaf, stem and root but to the US government it looks and grows like maize, so it is safe to eat.

GM crops face mounting scientific evidence of uncertainty, risk and danger. But now, because of rising food prices, the GM industry's claim that GM is needed to feed the world is suddenly newsworthy again. However, a key reason for soaring food prices higher oil costs leading to higher fertiliser prices also presents a massive threat to GM crops. All current and planned GM crops depend on artificial, oil-based fertiliser to grow, and all need to be treated with pesticides to survive.

In 2006, the pro-GM US Department of Agriculture observed that "currently available GM crops do not increase yield potential" a point already made by a 2004 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report which acknowledged that "GM crops can have reduced yields". The recently published UN IAASTD report, the work of more than 400 international scientists, about the future of global food production under the challenges of climate change and population pressure, concluded that GM crops do not have much to offer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GM foods: 'un'natural selection.

Avarice and greed in the name of exploiting a food crisis brought on not by food shortages, but high prices of oil and feed and... more

JanforGore
added this

21 responses

3 months ago

Dr. Vandana Shiva: Why Prince Charles is right: we need GM free food for food security

Corporate monopoly over our food systems is a food security disaster. And while in some places like India these disasters have already had an impact at a global level, they are a disaster in the making.

It is therefore unscientific, illogical and irresponsible for the Environmental Minister Mr Woolas to say that Prince Charles must provide "proof" that a disaster has happened.

I would imagine that he is aware of the environmental principle on which the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change rest.

The principle is called the Precautionary Principle. It is based on the recognition that when an activity or technology has the potential to cause harm, and there is no conclusive evidence to establish the harm that can be caused, then policy and decision making must err on the side of caution.

The Environment Minister also said "Government ministers have a responsibility to base policy on science and I do strongly believe that we have a moral responsibility to the developing world to ask the question: 'Can GM crops help'?

Minister, if you could travel with me through Vidarbha and see the tears in the eyes of farmers' widows, you would be compelled to ask the question:'Can GM crops harm'? That is your moral responsibility.

It is also your responsibility to sincerely base your decisions on real science, not pseudo science. Science based policy would recognise that an agriculture that conserves biodiversity also produces more food and nutrition per unit acre.

Science based policy would recognise that if farmers fall into debt, it is not an instrument for ending poverty, but a recipe for ending the lives of small farmers.

A science based policy would not blindly spread GM crops to Africa without assessing their role in India's agrarian crisis. A science based policy would not be based on unscientific principle of "substantial equivalence" which has prevented independent and serious testing of GM foods and crops.

That is why the Supreme Court of India has served notice on the Government of India to ask why a GMO moratorium should not be imposed till proper testing protocols and tests and facilities for biosafety are in place.

end of excerpt.
``~~~
Dr. Vandana Shiva is one of the most passionate and knowledgable scholars and environmental activists on the topic of GM foods, the global water crisis, Monsanto ( bio technology), sustainability, and environmental democracy. I trust her words and her judgement on this implicitly as I too have done the research. The world needs to listen to and read her words as she speaks truth about the monopoly taking form to control both our food and water in the guise of companies stating they are pushing GM organisms on us for our own benefit, when it is really for their own.

GM foods and the poisons sprayed on them that are in our water and food are not sustainable and will not save this world from a food crisis, but may well perpetuate it especially in areas of severe drought. We have all the conventional food we need to feed this world save political corruption (World Bank) and those in power looking to deny it to those who need it most to suit their own political, economic, and ideological agendas. I hold Dr. Shiva in the highest esteem and take her word on this based on her years of experience over anyone looking to defend the monstrous crime being perpetrated by these biocompanies on our environment and our health.Corporate monopoly over our food systems is a food security disaster. And while in some places like India these disasters have... more

JanforGore
added this

24 responses

3 months ago

Science Adviser Says, "GM Foods Help Environment"

Nina V. Fedoroff is science adviser to the secretary of state and contends that genetically modified foods help the environment. ... more

Nettle
added this

3 responses

3 months ago

GM sugarbeets not a sweet proposition, and citizens are fighting back

Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
-- Anthropologist Margaret Mead

Even if you've heard the above quote many times before, the sentiment expressed is so powerful that I think it's worth repeating. All around the world, small groups of people are organizing public support for improved food safety and successfully challenging large corporations to change their behavior.

That's exactly what Flint Michigan residents Kathleen Kirby and Mark Fisher are banking on: their power to influence change. They're participating in a nationwide consumer boycott of Kellogg's Co. instigated by the Organic Consumers Association. By boycotting the world's largest cereal company, they hope to pressure Kellogg's into rejecting the use of sugar from genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets and to spark widespread market rejection in products ranging from cereal to baby food to candy.

As you may know, Roundup Ready sugar beets are genetically altered to resist Monsanto's toxic weed killer, Roundup, and its active ingredient, glyphosate. But here's the scary truth about these beets:

When the USDA first approved GE sugar beets for commercial planting in 1998, the EPA also increased the maximum allowable residues of glyphosate on sugar beet roots from just 0.2 parts per million to 10ppm. That's a staggering 5,000 percent increase of allowable toxins on beet roots. And, it's little surprise that EPA made this policy change at the request of Monsanto.

Sugar beet roots contain sucrose that's extracted, refined, and processed into the sugar used in the foods we eat. What this means is that the more GE ingredients that find their way into our food, the greater the likelihood that we are ingesting more toxic chemicals.

Thankfully, GE sugar beets have never been grown in the U.S. for sale to food manufacturers -- that is, until this year, when Western farmers planted their first crop of Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets. Right now, over half of the sugar used in U.S. processed foods comes from sugar beets, with beet and cane sugars combined in those products. What's most disturbing is that once GE sugar beets hit the market, which could be as early as next year, there will be no way to know if we're eating GE sugar because GE ingredients are not labeled.

Currently, only four major GE crops are sold commercially -- corn, cotton, soy, and canola. Most of these are engineered to withstand repeated, large doses of herbicides. For the most part, these crops and their byproducts are largely fed to animals with the exception of some minor food ingredients and oils. GE beet sugar breaks with this tradition in that it could become the first major GE ingredient added to almost all processed foods on our grocery store shelves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our food supply is systematically being taken over and poisoned by Monsanto.There is no other way to state it now. If sugarbeets are allowed to continue to become a part of our food supply, then you can expect that EVERYTHING you touch will be genetically modified, and it has NOT been proven to be safe for human consumption or our environment. Please, I have been writing on this for months along with others who have been trying to make people understand how URGENT it is that you get involved in pushing state legislatures to require proper labelling of GM sources in foods. Read up on this at the Monsanto tag and take action.

Citizen activism is the only way to make companies like Monsanto back down. Consumers did it regarding POSILAC, and we can do it with this. Current TV is the only place I have been able to get exposure to this so far aside from my own blog, and it is also because of people here voting the information up so more can see it. So thank you to those who fight the good fight here everyday over those who would do anything in their power to keep this down.
Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." --... more

JanforGore
added this

25 responses

3 months ago

Prince Charles slams GM foods.....again

Prince Charles has warned that genetically modified crops could spark "the biggest disaster environmentally of all... more

Beta_Boy
added this

24 responses

3 months ago

Farm and food: Monsanto's prices to rise on RoundUp and seeds

In late March, Monsanto Co. sent a Dear Valued Customer letter to most U.S. corn and soybean farmers. The reason, wrote Jim... more

JanforGore
added this

30 responses

3 months ago

Barren Spring

Author Claire Hope Cummings dishes the dirt on genetically modified food
By Bonnie Azab Powell
01 Aug 2008

One of the most encouraging things about the sustainable-food movement is how effortlessly it crosses traditional political-party, religious, ethnic, and other lines. The right to good, clean, and fair food, to borrow Slow Food's shorthand, seems to unite people who'd never otherwise find themselves chatting at the same party: Home schoolers and dreadlocked hippies, libertarian DIYers and heartland moms.

But there are little pockets of polarization where brawls can break out. One of them is the so-called elitism of such food. The biggest hot-button issue by far, though, is that of transgenic crops. The food movement's Christian wing opposes it for religious reasons, the Berkeley brigade for dogmatic ones, the moms out of health fears. Those with science or technology backgrounds, however, tend to see genetically modified organisms as just another tool in the how-we-are-going-to-feed-the-world toolbox -- and tend to get pretty impatient with those who fear them.

In her new book, Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds, Claire Hope Cummings marches through the middle of these often reflexive con and pro positions in search of a more nuanced big-picture view. An environmental lawyer for 20 years, including four spent with the USDA, Cummings now reports regularly on agriculture and the environment. She has also farmed in California and in Vietnam. These experiences inform her book, which chronicles how transgenic seeds came to market; how their corporate backing has affected farmers, biodiversity, and agricultural sovereignty; and what their unfettered spread may mean for humankind.

It's not a happy picture. Just as Rachel Carson opened Silent Spring with the allegory of a town that woke up to find all the birds gone silent, Cummings said she considered starting Uncertain Peril with a scene in which everyone goes out to check their spring gardens, only to find that nothing has grown. Recently Cummings stopped by my house in Oakland, Calif., (yes, on the Berkeley border) for a chat conducted at her usual breakneck pace.

* * * * *

Click on the pic for the rest of the article and for the in-text links.Author Claire Hope Cummings dishes the dirt on genetically modified food By Bonnie Azab Powell 01 Aug 2008 One of the most... more

Vierotchka
added this

11 responses

4 months ago

Bush and Monsanto pushing to give FDA more power

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) is pushing to get a provision into the Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2008 that... more

JanforGore
added this

25 responses

4 months ago

Obama considers Monsanto ally Ann Veneman for VP (!?)

Barack Obama's vice presidential search team had begun floating the name of former Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, one... more

JanforGore
added this

51 responses

4 months ago

Indian farmers shun genetically modified crops for organic solutions

Bt cotton was engineered to combat pests, with the introduction into the cotton seed of a gene from a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has a natural insect-killing poison called Bt-toxin. When it was introduced into India at the turn of the century, it was promoted as the "wonder product" that would solve the serious problem of pests, which many of India's 17 million cotton farmers were facing.

Many of the farmers had not been growing cotton as a cash crop for very long. In the late 1980s, under pressure from the International Monetary Fund, India had opened up its strongly protected economy and encouraged its farmers to switch to modern farming, with its hybrid seeds, fertilisers and pesticides. The idea was to turn India into an important exporter of commodities, including cotton.

At first, cotton farmers did well. They got high yields and enjoyed a real increase in income. But then problems arose. The hybrid cotton proved susceptible to pests and diseases, and it was not uncommon for farmers to spray their fields up to 30 times in a single season. Production costs went through the roof and farmers got trapped in debt. They became desperate for a technical fix, and Bt cotton seemed to be the answer.

In its first year of sales, Mahyco-Monsanto sold its entire stock of Bt cotton. According to the company, the area in India under Bt cotton rose from 3.1m acres in 2005 to 14.4m acres in 2007. According to Sekhar Natarajan, regional leader of Monsanto India, Bt cotton yielded 700kg-900kg per acre, compared with 300kg-400kg an acre with conventional seeds.

However, some say that what has been happening on the ground has been very different from the official success story. Scientists Abdul Qayum and Kiran Sakhari assessed Bt cotton's performance in the first three years and found that, despite claims by the company, farmers were not achieving big yields. This perhaps was to be expected, because Bt cotton had been engineered to reduce pesticide use, not to increase yields. But, more surprisingly, they found that pesticide use was not falling either, because farmers were facing serious problems with secondary pests. They worked out that, on average, the income of non-Bt farmers was 60% higher than that of Bt farmers. Monsanto contests these numbers.

There have been other, more alarming problems. In her chat with the visiting farmers, Sattemma says she had seen several of her neighbour's goats die after spending all day grazing on post-harvest Bt cotton plants. Such a story could be dismissed as anecdotal, if it were not backed up by more solid evidence. In 2006, more than 1,800 sheep died in similar circumstances in other villages in Warangal district. The symptoms and post-mortem findings suggested that they had died from severe toxicity. Hundreds of agricultural workers had also developed allergic symptoms when exposed to Bt cotton.
Bt cotton was engineered to combat pests, with the introduction into the cotton seed of a gene from a soil bacterium called... more

JanforGore
added this

8 responses

4 months ago

Genetically modified foods. Are they safe?

Just in case you thought it was fine to eat Genetically Modified foods (better identified as “FrankenFoods”), along... more

Marilynn_Murray
added this

57 responses

7 months ago

Small Farmers, Ecofeminism, Vandana Shiva

For more than a century, farms have been getting bigger while seeds, fertilization and pest control have been getting more uniform. Led by farm suppliers, it has raised productivity. But negative byproducts of this trend include increasing chemical dependence and loss of biodiversity. Ecofeminist Vandana Shiva is at the Organic World Congress to protest the human and environmental cost of monoculture. The pendulum may be swinging back her way as consumer preference (among "locavores") for locally grown food and organic food increases, as the public becomes more aware of the impact of chemicals on the environment, and as higher petroleum prices result in pricier fertilizers and pesticides.

Vandana is one of the speakers at the opening ceremony of the Organic World Congress in Modena's large Piazza Grande, which fills the center of the city behind the famed (Michelin three-starred) Romanesque Duomo, shown below earlier in the day as the seats were being set up.

An eloquent defender of the property rights of small farms in India and other countries, Vandana has devoted much of her life to research on the effects of loss of biodiversity resulting from monoculture and has allied herself with the Slow Food Movement. Her books include The Violence of the Green Revolution and Monocultures of the Mind. She decided that science was not serving the interests of small farmers, so she left the academic world and formed her own organization, Navdanya.

Because she associates monoculture with a masculine wish to dominate -- and sees it as threatening both small farmers and biodiversity in the name of temporarily higher productivity -- Vandana has been called an ecofeminist, a term attributed to the late Francoise d'Eaubonne describing someone resistant to abuse of either women or mother nature, and adds in empathy for the small farmer in developing countries.

Small-farm consolidation continues, as was highlighted in South Africa just this week. The Valley Trust has for years been working with rural communities to provide health and other services and support organic farms. It has recently broken ranks with the South African Department of Agriculture for its pressure on small-scale farmers to join cooperatives. Small farmers are promised financial help, farm equipment, water piping and free seeds in return for joining the larger farming unit. The catch is that the small farmer must plant genetically modified seeds, which create farmer dependence on commercial monoculture. The director of Biowatch, an NGO promoting alternatives to GMO farming, says: "In the end, most farmers end up in huge debt, because they can't save seeds and are obliged to buy the matching GM fertilizers and pesticides" .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Shiva was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 2005. I think she should be nominated again and win in this year for her work to sow seeds of hope and peace in place of the seeds of deception and environmental destruction that have been planted by Monsanto.
For more than a century, farms have been getting bigger while seeds, fertilization and pest control have been getting more... more

JanforGore
added this

12 responses

4 months ago

Campaign for genetically modified free schools

Children face the greatest risk from the potential dangers of GM foods: Young, fast-developing bodies are influenced most. ... more

JanforGore
added this

21 responses

4 months ago

Study reveals signs of toxicity of GE maize approved for human consumption

"Laboratory rats, fed with a genetically engineered (GE) maize produced by Monsanto, have shown signs of toxicity in kidney and liver, according to a new study.(1) This is the first time that a GE product which has been cleared for use as food for humans and animals has shown signs of toxic effects on internal organs.

The study, published today in the journal “Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology”, analysed results of safety tests submitted by Monsanto to the European Commission when the company was seeking authorisation to market its GE Maize variety MON863 in the EU. (2)

The data shows that MON863 has significant health risks associated with it; nonetheless, the European Commission granted licences to market the maize for consumption by both humans and animals. (3)

The incriminating evidence was obtained by Greenpeace following a court case (4), and passed on for evaluation by a team of experts headed by Professor Gilles Eric Séralini, a governmental expert in genetic engineering technology from the University of Caen. (5)

In a joint press conference with Greenpeace at Berlin, Professor Séralini said, “Monsanto’s analyses do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny – to begin with, their statistical protocols are highly questionable. Worse, the company failed to run a sufficient analysis of the differences in animal weight. Crucial data from urine tests were concealed in the company’s own publications.”

Greenpeace is demanding the complete and immediate withdrawal of Monsanto’s MON 863 maize from the global market and is calling upon governments to undertake an urgent reassessment of all other authorised GE products and a strict review of current testing methods.

“This is the final nail in the coffin for the credibility of the current authorisation system for GE products. Once it’s known that a system designed to protect human and animal health has approved a high-risk product despite clear evidence of its dangers, we need to start ‘strip-searching’ all GE products on the market, and immediately abort this flawed approval procedure,” said Christophe Then, Genetic Engineer campaigner, Greenpeace International.

The data in question has been the subject of fierce debate since 2003, when significant changes were identified in the blood of tested animals fed on MON863. MON863 was approved by the European Commission, in spite of opposition by a majority of EU member states, who raised concerns over the safety of the maize. Professor Séralini’s analysis now scientifically confirms these concerns. As the study states, “with the present data, it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.” And yet, MON863 has been authorised for markets in Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, the Phillipines, and USA, besides the EU.

“This is an international emergency alert, requiring a global response,” concluded Then, “Only a complete withdrawal from all markets will curtail the possible damage".”

What are the chances we have already eaten this corn? I'd say pretty good, even though consumers aren't allowed to know if they are eating it. Don't you just love knowing you may be eating food produced by the same company that made PCBs and Agent Orange? MMM MMM good."Laboratory rats, fed with a genetically engineered (GE) maize produced by Monsanto, have shown signs of toxicity in kidney... more

JanforGore
added this

11 responses

4 months ago

GM contamination of traditional crops at all time high

The huge and growing burden of contamination of non-GE crops by genetically engineered variants is highlighted today, as Greenpeace and GeneWatch publish “The GM contamination register report”, which provides a detailed overview of the significant contamination events from around the world(1) in 2006.

The report shows that GE contamination reached record levels in 2006 with a total of twenty-four major incidents reported. The complete online register (www.gmcontaminationregister.org) (2) details 142 cases of unintended release, illegal planting and harmful agricultural impacts of GE crops, recorded from around the world in the last decade.

The launch of the report coincides with an international meeting of legal and technical experts in Montreal, who are considering whether companies manufacturing GE seeds should be liable for the economic and environmental damage caused when these varieties contaminate non-GE crops. Greenpeace and GeneWatch UK are calling on the negotiators to put in place a binding international regime to enforce this liability.

“As our report has shown, there is an urgent need for a strong liability treaty,” said Doreen Stabinsky of Greenpeace International. “2006 has been the worst year yet for GE contamination. A strong treaty would make sure that companies profiting from the technology are made to pay for the economic and environmental damage caused by their products. Without liability protection, it is small farmers around the world who will pay the price.”

GE maize is one of the most problematic crops, according to the report. GE maize was involved in nearly one-third of all contamination incidents over the last decade, with four incidents of maize seed contamination (in four different countries) reported in 2006. Contamination of maize seed is a serious problem for both farmers and consumers around the world, but particularly in areas where traditional varieties are still grown. Even though Mexico – the birthplace of maize – does not currently allow field trials or commercial farming of GE maize, traditional varieties of maize have been contaminated. Brazil – also a centre of diversity for maize and home of many valuable indigenous varieties – is also identified as being at high risk.

Becky Price from GeneWatch UK said, “Contamination from genetically engineered crops is a growing problem that countries must take seriously in order to protect farmers’ and consumers’ choice to grow and eat GE-free food. By linking contamination to economic penalties for biotechnology companies, we stand a much higher chance of protecting the world’s food and seed supplies for future generations.”
The huge and growing burden of contamination of non-GE crops by genetically engineered variants is highlighted today, as... more