News Updates...

BioREALITY Conference!
March 27-29, 2007 - Washington, DC

Members of The Campaign receive FREE Admission to the BioREALITY Conference!

Members of The Campaign are eligible to receive FREE Admission to the 1st Annual BioREALITY Conference that will be held in Washington, DC, March 27-29, 2007. This groundbreaking conference is sponsored by The Campaign and The Coordinating Council and will feature three exciting days of education, lobbying and strategic planning on the issues surrounding genetically engineered foods.

Seating is limited so you must register in advance to attend the conference.

If you received this e-mail directly from The Campaign, it means you are already in our records as a member and you are eligible to register for free. If you are not yet a member of The Campaign, membership is free. You can join The Campaign by going to: www.thecampaign.org/join.php

On Tuesday, March 27th, leading experts on the issues surrounding genetically modified crops will explain the challenges that these experimental foods pose to human health and the global environment.

On Wednesday, March 28th, we will visit the halls of the U.S. Congress where we will express our concerns to members of the House of Representatives and the Senate and their legislative aides. We will be giving out copies of Deborah Garcia's outstanding documentary, The Future of Food and copies of Jeffrey Smith's newly released book, Genetic Roulette.

On Thursday, March 29th, we will come together and strategize about the many ways we can work to fight genetically engineered crops on a city, county, state and national level. Hear from activists about the successes they have had and discover what you can do to help get labeling and proper regulations for genetically engineered foods.

To learn more about this landmark event, visit the BioREALITY Conference web site at: www.bioreality.org

If you are a member of The Campaign and want to sign up for free admission, go to: www.bioreality.org/thecampaign.php

Major victory for our side: Federal court rules against the USDA and bans genetically engineered alfalfa

In what is considered to be a major victory for opponents of genetically engineered crops, the USDA has ruled that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) failed to follow federal environmental laws by not conducting a full Environmental Impact Statement before approving genetically engineered alfalfa.

The Roundup Ready genetically engineered alfalfa produced by Monsanto was approved by the USDA in June 2005 and 200,000 acres were grown in 2006. That figure was expected to grow to 550,000 acres in 2007. However, on March 12, 2007, Judge Charles R. Breyer of Federal District Court in San Francisco, ordering a halt to seed sales and banned any planting of Monsanto's genetically engineered alfalfa after March 30.

(Note: Although 200,000 acres may sound like a lot, the total alfalfa acreage in the U.S. is about 22 million acres. Most of it is used to feed livestock.)

This ruling by Judge Breyer was a preliminary injunction and he will decide whether or not the injunction will become permanent at a hearing in late April.

The lawsuit was brought against the USDA by the Center for Food Safety along with some seed companies and environmental and farmer advocacy groups.

Of significant importance was that Judge Breyer found the USDA had failed to assess adequately whether the Roundup Ready trait could be transferred to organic or conventional alfalfa, thereby hurting sales of organic farmers and alfalfa exports.

Organic crops are under direct assault by contamination from genetically engineered crops. It is beneficial to the organic industry to have a federal judge acknowledge that the potential does exist for biotech crops to damage organic crops and thereby hurt sales.

U.S. exports of alfalfa are nearly $480 million a year. About 75% of the exports go to Japan, a country that has warned the U.S. that they may discontinue importing U.S. alfalfa if it is genetically engineered.

Some environmental researchers have raised concerns that the death of millions of honeybees in the United States in recent years could be linked to toxic pollen coming off the genetically engineered crops. They point out that alfalfa is a crop that is highly dependent on the bees, far more than a crop like corn that cross-pollinates primarily by the wind.

Are the bees dying from exposure to genetically engineered pollen? It is hard to say because so little research has been done on these matters. But before allowing the widespread growing of genetically engineered alfalfa, it would be prudent to include the impact to honeybees when conducting research for the Environmental Impact Statement. Honeybees play an essential role in the ability to grow many crops and their continued demise could have a devastating effect on U.S. agriculture.

ACTION ALERT:  Cloned meat coming to a dinner table near you...

In an action likely to create a lot more vegetarians in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released a preliminary safety assessment that indicates meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring are as safe to eat as regular meat and milk.

Further, the FDA has indicated they will not require the meat and dairy products from cloned animals and their offspring to be labeled.

Just like they did with genetically engineered crops and milk from cows injected with bovine growth hormone (rBGH), the FDA is ignoring the scientific evidence that shows these products may be harmful to human health.

For example, research conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on cloned mice and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the placentas and livers of newborn cloned mice had many abnormal genes. The study found that almost 50 percent of the "imprinted genes" involved in the development of the embryo were incorrectly expressed. The lead researcher stated, "There is no reason in the world to assume that any other mammal, including humans, would be different from mice."

Many cloned animals die at birth or shortly thereafter. Corporate researchers involved in cloning livestock such as cattle, sheep and pigs have argued that if the animals get past birth, they are normal and healthy. But other scientists point out that these seemingly normal animals actually contain genetic abnormalities, but not to the degree that they are fatal to the animals.

Before allowing the American public to become human guinea pigs eating cloned animals and the offspring of cloned animals, double blind, peer-reviewed human feeding studies should be conducted. Only after these cloned animals have been proven to be safe should they be allowed to be fed to the public. And if they are allowed to be sold, they should be labeled as such so that citizens have the right to decide whether or not they want to eat cloned animals.

If these cloned animals are allowed to be sold, the beef, poultry, pig and dairy industries will have significant public relations challenges on their hands trying to convince the American public that they are safe. And vegetarian restaurants will need to get prepared for a lot of new customers.

You can send comments to the FDA until April 2, 2007, opposing their approval of unlabeled meat and milk from cloned animals at the following web site:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/getDocketInfo.cfm?
EC_DOCUMENT_ID=1369&SORT=&MAXROWS=15&START=106&CID=&AGENCY=FDA

When submitting your comments to the FDA, we suggest you make some or all of the following points:

• You oppose the FDA's approval of allowing meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring to be sold in the United States.
• Double-blind, peer-reviewed human feeding studies proving safety should be conducted before allowing these risky foods to be fed to the public.
• Studies showing the impact of cloning on animal suffering should be conducted.
• If the meat and milk from cloned animals is allowed to be sold, these products should be clearly labeled indicating they come from cloned animals.

Your comments must be submitted by April 2, 2007.

ACTION ALERT:  USDA approves genetically altered rice that contains a pharmaceutical drug to fight diarrhea

In what is considered by many researchers to be a reckless decision, the USDA has given preliminary approval for rice genetically engineered to contain human genes to be grown outdoors in Kansas.

Ventria Bioscience plans large-scale cultivation of the controversial rice genetically engineered to produce human immune system proteins in its seeds. The protein would be extracted to be used in anti-diarrhea medicine.

Critics charge that the potential exists in outdoors cultivation of "pharmcrops" for the biotech trait to find its way into commercial rice and into other crops through cross-pollination and horizontal gene transfer. If that happens, then unsuspecting consumers could have allergic reactions and develop other negative health impacts. For example, could someone who does not have diarrhea develop constipation from exposure to the genetically altered protein?

Previously the USDA issued proposed rules that would allow corn genetically engineered to contain pharmaceutical drugs to be grown within one mile of corn grown for human consumption. Since corn pollen can blow for miles in a storm, critics have charged that the USDA is acting on behalf of the biotech industry while dismissing the genuine potential of genetic contamination of the human food supply.

Even the mainstream grocery industry has expressed concern over the outdoor growing of human food crops that contain pharmaceutical drugs. They want non-food crops to be used such as tobacco.

Most anti-biotech food activists argue that even restricting pharmcrops to non-food crops is not enough. Researchers point out that the creation of "superweeds" shows that biotech genes do cross species through horizontal gene transfer. They argue that if these crops are going to be grown at all, it should only be in non-food crops and also be confined to controlled environments such as greenhouses.

You can express your concern to the USDA on this issue until March 30, 2007. However, the USDA is making the process of submitting comments quite cumbersome. To submit comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and, in the lower Search Regulations and Federal Actions box, select "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service" from the agency drop-down menu, and then click on Submit. In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0006 to submit or view public comments.

When submitting your comments to the USDA, we suggest you make some or all of the following points:

• You oppose granting permission to Ventria Bioscience to grow genetically altered rice in Kansas or anywhere in the United States.
• You oppose the outdoor growing of any crops that contain pharmaceutical drugs.
• If crops that contain pharmaceutical drugs are grown, it should only be in non-food crops and confined to controlled environments such as greenhouses.
• A full Environmental Impact Statement should be required for any and all genetically engineered crops before they are permitted to be grown in the United States.

Your comments must be submitted by March 30, 2007.

Starbucks and Safeway move towards milk produced without rBGH

In a major victory for concerned citizens, both Starbucks and Safeway are moving towards milk produced without rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone). rBGH is a synthetic version of bovine growth hormone that is injected into a cow to increase her milk production artificially. It is disallowed in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all 25 nations of the European Union.

Starbucks was the target of an anti-rBGH campaign for several years. In January, Starbucks began using rBGH-free products in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska, Montana, Northern California and New England stores. The products included are fluid milk, half and half, whipping cream and eggnog.

About 37% of the dairy products Starbucks buys is currently rBGH-free. A Starbucks company spokesman, Sanja Gould, said the company eventually would like to have all of its stores use rBGH-free dairy products.

Just days after Starbucks announced its plans to go rBGH-free, Safeway announced that their fluid milk processed in their Seattle, Portland and northern California plants is now rBGH-free. A factor in Safeway's decision may have been that Starbucks gets their milk from Safeway in the Northwest.

It is uncertain whether Safeway's other processing plants will also go rBGH-free.

If you want to learn a lot more about rBGH, the BioREALITY Conference will feature some of the nation's leading experts.

Both Samuel Epstein, MD, author of What's In Your Milk and Rick North, project director for the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility’s Campaign For Safe Food, will be speaking on the issue of rBGH. Dr. Epstein will speak on Tuesday morning, Rick will speak on Thursday morning, and on Thursday afternoon, they will both conduct a 90-minute workshop titled "Fighting and Winning the rBGH Battle."

And speaking of rBGH battles, former Fox News television reporter, Jane Akre, will also be a participant at the BioREALITY Conference. In 1997, Jane and her husband Steve Wilson were fired from Fox News after refusing to include knowingly false information in their report concerning Monsanto's production of rBGH. They successfully sued under Florida's whistle blower law and were awarded a $425,000 settlement by jury decision. However, FOX appealed to an appellate court and won. In 2001, Jane and Steve won the won the prestigious "Goldman Environmental Prize" as a recognition for their report on rBGH.

"Superweeds" threaten genetically engineered cotton and soybeans

There is growing evidence that two aggressive weeds, Palmer amaranth (shown at left) and giant ragweed, have become resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. As a result, fields of Roundup Ready soybeans and cotton may become invaded by these troublesome weeds.

Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth has been found in ten counties in North Carolina and four in Georgia. Glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed has been found in Ohio and Indiana.

Dr. Stanley Culpepper, a University of Georgia weed scientist, has stated "This Palmer amaranth population has tolerated extremely high rates of glyphosate applied in the field under excellent growing conditions." There are about 500 acres of Roundup Ready cotton in central Georgia that has been invaded by Palmer amaranth. Palmer amaranth is the most competitive and rapidly growing species of the weedy pigweeds. It can grow as high as 10 feet and produces as many as a half a million seeds a season.

Discussing the Palmer amaranth threat to the cotton crop, weed scientist Alan York of North Carolina State said, "It is potentially the worse threat since the boll weevil." (The boll weevil decimated cotton crops in the early 1900s.)

Monsanto apparently knows the glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth could be a real threat and has issued a press release to its customers "to encourage them to be very proactive in managing that weed."

Organic industry struggles with GMO contamination issue in U.S. and abroad

According to an article in the February 2007 edition of
The Organic & Non-GMO Report, the former chair of the U.S. National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), Jim Riddle, is recommending that the U.S. National Organic Program (NOP) establish a GMO threshold for organics.

Jim Riddle made his point about the issue of genetic trespass into organic crops while speaking at the Iowa Organic Conference in November.

Under the current rules, the national organic standards do not allow genetic modification of organic crops. However, there is no standard set for contamination through cross-pollination or other genetic trespass.

Therefore, at the present time, having GMO contamination will not disqualify a crop from earning the organic seal. But if crops are tested and found positive for the presence of GMO contamination, they could be rejected by buyers looking for organic crops without genetic contamination.

There is a threshold for pesticide contamination of organic crops (5% of the Environmental Protection Agency tolerance for the crop) and Riddle compared this format to the one that could be set up for a GMO threshold.

Riddle, who is now organic outreach coordinator at the University of Minnesota, also pointed out that without a regulatory threshold for GMOs there is most likely no legal protection for organic producers who suffer loses from genetic trespass.

If and when the NOSB listens to Jim Riddle's suggestion of establishing a GMO threshold, there will likely be some lively debate about what the level should be set at for the threshold.

This GMO threshold debate is currently taking place in the European Union (EU) where hardly any genetically engineered crops are being grown and genetic trespass is extremely rare.

In the EU, a threshold of 0.9% is being recommended by the European Commission and this standard is being pushed by the Finnish Presidency of the European Union, Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen. The United Kingdom (UK) government seems prepared to go along with European Commission recommendation. However, the UK government is meeting aggressive opposition by The Soil Association, the UK's leading campaigning and certification organization for organic food and farming.

According to a press release from the Soil Association, on February 5, 2007, a delegation representing 74 organic businesses had a meeting at the House of Commons to express their "grave concern at Government proposals to allow up to 0.9% GM in organic food without it being labelled."

Peter Melchett, Soil Association Policy Director said: "The Soil Association has pledged to keep GM out of organic food, so the public can continue to put their trust in organic food." The Soil Association wants the threshold to be 0.1% instead of 0.9%.

It will be interesting to watch the U.S. organic industry sort out the issue of genetic trespass. As Jim Riddle points out, to not address the issue is akin to "sticking our heads in the sand."

Photo of Tomato Puree "Made with Genetically Modified Tomatoes"

Special thanks goes out to Seth Tibbott of Turtle Island Foods, maker of "Tofurky" for sending The Campaign the following photo of a can of "California Tomato Puree Made with Genetically Modified Tomatoes."

Seth was in a Sainsbury store in London, England in the late '90s when this can of GMO tomatoes caught his eye and he bought it. It is quite a collectors item!

Check out The Mouth Revolution video

Annie's Homegrown and Free Range Studios (creators of The Meatrix) have produced a unique new video promoting organic food called The Mouth Revolution. The Mouth Revolution is a humorous 4.5-minute live-action film. This quirky video parodies history and contemporary culture while informing viewers about the value of eating organic foods.

The video advocates for foods that have No GMOs, No Trans Fats, No Pesticides, and No Artificial Ingredients.

At the end of The Mouth Revolution video, viewers are encouraged to take action. On the GMO issue, viewers are sent to The Campaign's web site where they can send e-mails to members of the House of Representatives asking them to support the labeling of genetically engineered foods.

To view The Mouth Revolution, visit the following web page:
http://www.mouthrevolution.com

The Campaign thanks Annie's Homegrown for promoting our efforts to get labeling on genetically engineered foods!

Support our Supporters

[Click on their logos to visit their web sites]

Copyright 2007 © The Campaign

The Campaign
PO Box 55699
Seattle, WA 98155
425-771-4049
info@thecampaign.org
www.thecampaign.org