Food Inc.

Consumer Epidemic- National Geographic

Super Corn-borers Threaten World Ecological and Economical Disaster

Listen to Make a Difference by South African Band Tucan-Tucan



                                                                                     

By Trevor Wells
Farmers' Legal Action Group-South Africa

The naturally occurring bacillus thuriengus (Bt) is one of the most useful living organisms known to mankind.
It was found that this bacteria produces a crystal insecticide (Cry toxin) which kills insect larvae.

Bt plays an important ecological role in the natural control of stalkborer (cornborer).

In 1993, prior to the introduction of GM maize in South Africa, Dr Rami Kfir of the South African Agricultural Research Council (ARC) reported in the Journal of African Zoology 107:543-553 that these useful insecticidal bacteria play an important role in the ecological cycle of all indigenous grasses, sorghum and maize which hosts the African Stalkborer (Busseola fusca).
The larvae of the stalkborer hibernate over winter in the dry stalks of grasses.
He reported a high winter mortality rate of larvae of the stalkborer which he attributed partially to Bt which he had significantly isolated, among other pathogens, on the cadavers of the hibernating stalkborer.

Bt plays an important economical role as a source of biodegradable insecticide.

Scientists have succeeded in producing commercial formulations, both granular and liquid, of Cry toxins which are extremely effective when applied at the hatching, crawling and early eating stages when the larvae are exposed and most vulnerable. It is strategically applied by conventional means or pivot irrigation by farmers. The importance of this insecticide is that it biodegrades on the plant and is therefore non-toxic to humans and beneficial insects when used correctly. It has become increasingly important in the control of mosquitoes.
Naturally occurring Bt is therefore an important reservoir of Cry toxins for producing these commercial insecticides.

In 1985 Belgium scientists isolated the gene in Bt which produces the Cry toxin. First inserted into tobacco and later into corn, now popularly named Bt GM corn. Scientists have not been able to control the secretion of this insecticide in GM corn. They were unable to cause the plant to secrete the insecticide strategically at the time when the cornborer larvae is most vunerable. This is an important distinction from the application of biodegradable commercial Bt insecticide by
conventional farmers. Furthermore, it differs greatly from the attack on overwintering larvae by naturally occuring live Bt.

What is the result of constantly exuded Cry toxin, in every single cell of the corn plant from seed to mouth? Especially at times when the larvae are least vulnerable?

In 2005 the first reported cases of Bt resistant corn borer were reported by Senwes (A large Agribusiness in South Africa). They observed that large numbers of cornborer were surviving during the tasseling period. Senwes warned that these larvae were the predecessors of the first moth flight of the following season. Each moth lays 1500 eggs, 150 at a time on different host plants. Each of these Bt resistant offspring now pupate and the second moth flight of the season begins. One does not have to be an epidemiologist to work out that the spread of these resistant cornborer through Africa will be faster than the HIV/AIDS endemic.
Finally, 3 seasons later in a 2008 article in the Farmers’ Weekly, Monsanto admitted that stalkborer were now resistant to their Yieldgard maize. Monsanto did nothing to contain the spread of this new super resistant cornborer.
Monsanto merely announced that they were in the process of developing some new technology which would “starve the resistant cornborer” (sic).

Conclusion

Both the economic and ecological importance of the naturally occurring, previously beneficial bacteria Bt, has been effectively neutralised.

The Result

A world catastrophe of endemic proportion which could have been prevented.

Dignity in Tradition

US Citizens Tired of being treated as Mushrooms

U.S. begins to turn its back on GM crops, report claims
By SEAN POULTER
Last updated at 6:38 PM on 13th October 2008
•
America, the cradle of GM crops and food, is turning its back on the controversial technology, it has been claimed.
There is widespread distrust of GM food and a desire for the labelling that would allow people to decide whether to eat it, according to a report from green campaigners.
Research shows that 87per cent of Americans believe their food should carry a label showing whether it contains GM ingredients.


Changing tastes: Research by Soil Association's Lord Peter Melchett has found that Americans are turning away from GM food
At the same time, some 53 per cent of Americans say they would not choose to eat GM food.
Details emerged as a new alliance of US natural food producers outlined plans for a new labelling scheme to allow thousands of foods to be declared 'GM Free'.
The new report points out how a GM hormone, developed by Monsanto, which is injected into dairy cows to increase milk yields is effectively being killed off by consumer opposition.
Separately, farmers have rejected new GM crops, such as wheat, rice, sweet corn and alfalfa with the result these are not being grown commercially in the USA.
Even GM soya, which is widely grown in the USA, has been shown to be inferior in terms of its yields when compared to new varieties created from conventional cross breeding.
Historically, GM crops have been manipulated in the laboratory to contain a resistance to being sprayed by certain weedkillers, such as Monsanto's RoundUp. The genes are generally inserted into the DNA of the plant using a virus.
Some crops have been altered to contain an insecticide in their leaves and stalks, so killing any insect predators.
Recently, biotech companies, aided by the governments in the USA and Britain, have been touting GM crops as the solution to Third World hunger.
It has been suggested these crops will deliver higher yields or will allow plants to be cultivated in areas of drought or high salt soils.
However, none of these crops exist on a commercial basis despite promises from the biotech industry to deliver them dating back more than ten years.
The latest report is titled 'Land of the GM-Free? - How the American public are starting to turn against GM food.' It is co-authored by the long-term opponent of genetic modification, Lord Peter Melchett, policy director of the organic lobby group, the Soil Association.
The report claims that - to date - US consumers have been kept in the dark about GM and what is in the foods they are eating. It says as people become more aware of the issue, so opposition is growing.
The catalyst has been rejection of milk from cows given Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (BGH).
The report says the EU and Canada have banned use of the drug and any imported dairy products produced from cattle given the injections.
It says: 'Increasing consumer awareness of rBGH in the US has caused sales of the milk to plummet. Between 2002 and 2007 use of the hormone fell by 23 per cent, and the proportion of US cows being injected with rBGH fell from 25per cent to below 17per cent.
'Many major retailers, processors and producers have recently moved to ban rBGH from their products, with Wal-Mart, Safeway, Starbucks, Kraft and many more ensuring that their customers can only buy GM free dairy products for themselves and their families.'
Looking at new GM crops, the report claims: 'Both GM rice and wheat faced such strong opposition from farmers that they never made it out of field trials, and have never been grown commercially  in the USA.
'Hardly any GM sweetcorn for human consumption is grown either, for the simple reason that it tastes so bad.'
The new  labelling system for 'GM-Free' foods will be launched in the USA next year. Firms will go through a testing regime to prove they are free of GM contamination.
Around 400 companies in the US and Canada have pledged support to the scheme. They have combined annual sales of 12 billion dollars - equivalent to 10per cent of the UK food and drink industry.
In Europe, previously pro-GM countries like France and Germany are no longer supporters. The Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are all committed to GM-free policies.
By contrast, the report says: 'It is just the strongly pro-GM English government that looks increasingly out of touch with what consumers want.'
The former chief of the US Food & Drug Administration's biotech division Henry Miller, has condemned the critics of dairy cow growth hormone as 'kooks' and 'enviro-fanatics'.
In a recent Washington Post article, he said the hormone 'induces the average cow, which produces about 8 gallons of milk each day, to make nearly a gallon more'.  
He added: 'Disingenuous activists have unfairly stigmatised a scientifically proven product that has consistently delivered economic and environmental benefits to dairy farmers and consumers.'
CropGen, which speaks for the industry, said: 'Biotech crops are a tool for farmers to increase crop productivity while decreasing the impact on the environment and natural resources.
'Two hundred and nine biotech crops are under cultivation or development in 46 countries around the world.'

Organic farming can feed the world!

Prof Perfecto : Michigan University


Listen to Prof Perfecto explaining why.




ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, as low-intensive methods on the same land—according to new findings which refute the long-standing claim that organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population.

Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto, professor at U-M's School of Natural Resources and Environment, and one the study's principal investigators. Catherine Badgley, research scientist in the Museum of Paleontology, is a co-author of the paper along with several current and former graduate and undergraduate students from U-M.

"My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you can’t produce enough food through organic agriculture," Perfecto said.

In addition to equal or greater yields, the authors found that those yields could be accomplished using existing quantities of organic fertilizers, without putting more farmland into production.

The idea to undertake an exhaustive review of existing data about yields and nitrogen availability was fueled in a roundabout way, when Perfecto and Badgley were teaching a class about the global food system and visiting farms in Southern Michigan.

"We were struck by how much food the organic farmers would produce," Perfecto said. The researchers set about compiling data from published literature to investigate the two chief objections to organic farming: low yields and lack of organically acceptable nitrogen sources.

Their findings refute those key arguments, Perfecto said, and confirm that organic farming is less environmentally harmful yet can potentially produce more than enough food. This is especially good news for developing countries, where it’s sometimes impossible to deliver food from outside, so farmers must supply their own. Yields in developing countries could increase dramatically by switching to organic farming, Perfecto said.

While that seems counterintuitive, it makes sense because in developing countries, many farmers still do not have the access to the expensive fertilizers and pesticides that farmers use in developed countries to produce those high yields, she said.

After comparing yields of organic and non-organic farms, the researchers looked at nitrogen availability. To do so, they multiplied the current farm land area by the average amount of nitrogen available for production crops if so-called "green manures" were planted between growing seasons. Green manures are cover crops which are plowed into the soil to provide natural soil amendments. They found that planting green manures between growing seasons provided enough nitrogen to replace synthetic fertilizers.

Organic farming is important because conventional agriculture—which involves high-yielding plants, mechanized tillage, synthetic fertilizers and biocides—is so detrimental to the environment, Perfecto said. For instance, fertilizer runoff from conventional agriculture is the chief culprit in creating dead zones—low oxygen areas where marine life cannot survive. Proponents of organic farming argue that conventional farming also causes soil erosion, greenhouse gas emission, increased pest resistance and loss of biodiversity.

For their analysis, researchers defined the term organic as: practices referred to as sustainable or ecological; that utilize non-synthetic nutrient cycling processes; that exclude or rarely use synthetic pesticides; and sustain or regenerate the soil quality.

Perfecto said the idea that people would go hungry if farming went organic is "ridiculous."

"Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as well as fertilizer companies—all have been playing an important role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to produce food," she said.

Prince Charles predicts GM environmental disaster

Please wait for video player to load