Natural Solutions Foundation

The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

U.S. organic food industry fears GMO contamination

Mar 12, 2008
By Carey Gillam

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) – Widespread contamination of U.S. corn, soybeans and other crops by genetically engineered varieties is threatening the purity of organic and natural food products and driving purveyors of such specialty products to new efforts to protect their markets, industry leaders said this week.

A range of players, from dairy farmers to natural food retailers, are behind an effort to introduce testing requirements and standards for certification aimed at keeping contamination at bay. That goal is rapidly becoming harder, however, as planting of biotech corn, soybeans, and other crops expands across the United States.

“Now there is a real shortage of organic grain for animal husbandry and dairy operations,” said Organic Consumers Association national director Ronnie Cummins. “People are having to be real careful.”

Proponents of the plan are rolling it out this week at an industry meeting in Anaheim, California, seeking to get the entire organic and natural foods industry to agree on testing and standard certifications. Companies that get certified will be allowed to use a seal designating as much on their products.

“We think we can keep the contamination from getting worse by putting safeguards in place so people who want to choose to eat organic products free of genetic contamination can do so,” said Michael Funk, CEO of United Natural Foods, which is backing the initiative. “The longer we delay … the more challenging it is going to be.”

Biotech crops, primarily corn, soybeans, cotton and canola, have genes that have been manipulated to express specific traits, most commonly a resistance to herbicide, which helps farmers. Biotech developers such as Monsanto Co patent the crop technology and tightly control use of the seed.

But mixing of biotech crops and conventional crops can occur during many phases of harvest, storage and shipment of grain, and drifting pollen and other natural forces can also contaminate crops while they are still in the fields.

Indeed, contamination of conventional crops by biotech crops has been reported around the world. There were 39 cases of crop contamination in 23 countries in 2007, and more than 200 in 57 countries over the last 10 years, according to biotech critic Greenpeace International.

Contamination of corn is the biggest concern for those trying to sell biotech-free food. Corn is not only used in human food but is also used to feed livestock, meaning organic beef and dairy farmers must ensure their animals are fed corn that is free of contamination.

That has become more difficult as biotech corn acres have expanded in the United States. In 2007, an estimated 73 percent of the 92.9 million acres of U.S. corn planted were biotech, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The USDA has a set of national standards for foods labeled “organic” as part of its marketing service, but the industry players seeking independent testing said the USDA has not gone far enough to require organic and natural foods are free from biotech contamination.

Organic dairy farmer Albert Straus, who started testing corn fed to his 300-head dairy herd more than a year ago, and found about one-third had been contaminated, now tests every lot of grain he buys.

“I started to test our products to see if there was an issue or not. It turned out there was an issue,” said Straus. He is now adding a label to his dairy products to alert consumers to the extra level of caution. “There is so much contamination,” he said.

The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Amflora potato: not this year

March 12, 2008
GMO Compass

(March 12, 2008) Genetically modified potatoes will not be cultivated commercially in the European Union this season. Voting members of the EU Commission have delayed approval of the “Amflora” variety. Effectively, this results in the prohibition of its planting in 2008.

Intended for industrial uses, e.g., the manufacture of paper and adhesives, the Amflora potato has been genetically modified to produce amylopectin starch exclusively.

The Amflora potato was developed by BASF and an application for its approval for cultivation was submitted in 2003. Subsequently, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) conducted a scientific safety assessment. Upon the conclusion of tests in 2005, the EFSA declared the Amflora line to be identical to conventional potatoes with regard to its effect on the environment.

On the basis of this declaration, the EU Commission recommended the approval of Amflora for cultivation within the Union. However, this recommendation was unable in 2007 to find support from a qualified majority of ministerial representatives of Member States in the European Council. As foreseen by EU law, ultimate responsibility for approval then was conferred to the Commission. This decision now has been delayed.

Spokespeople for BASF had expressed hope for cultivation in 2008. However, due to various factors which include yearly planning of crops and the early registration of the intention to plant genetically modified lines, approval would have been needed in February at the latest.
postmaster is offline Reply With Quote
postmaster
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by postmaster
Reply

The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Rudd faces joint anti-GM campaign (Australia)

theage.com
Katharine Murphy
March 15, 2008

THE Federal Government faces a concerted campaign from a new coalition of health, environment and farm groups to ban genetically modified crops and foods until they are proved safe beyond reasonable doubt.

More than 700 groups and individuals have signed a letter urging Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and senior ministers to meet a group of 20 experts to examine the health risks associated with GM foods.

The fresh attempt to exert political pressure at the national level follows a controversial decision by Victoria and NSW to join Queensland in ending their bans on GM crops.

Agriculture Minister Tony Burke has also decided to endorse more research on GM as part of a strategy to help farmers deal with the challenges of climate change.

Before the election, Labor’s previous agriculture spokesman, Senator Kerry O’Brien, had been lukewarm towards the industry.

The new federal campaign is being led by wealthy Adelaide businessman Peter Fenwick, who has urged Labor to maintain its pre-election stance on genetic engineering.

Yesterday, Mr Fenwick said he believed Mr Burke was “relatively uninformed” about the risks associated with GM, and had been “captured by his department”.

Mr Rudd has been urged to:

â–  Stop the release of any GM crops until he has met scientific experts to hear the latest evidence.

â–  Order an immediate product safety recall on all GM crops, GM foods and GM animal feed, and ban their importation into Australia.

â–  Overhaul the regulatory bodies with responsibility for policing the industry, and override the states that have lifted their GM bans.

Groups involved in the campaign include the Public Health Association of Australia, the Australian Milk Producers of Australia, Biological Farmers of Australia, a think tank associated with the Catholic Church, plus a host of organic and biodynamic food companies including Pureharvest.
postmaster is offline Reply With Quote

The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
ASGA responds to court challenge of Roundup Ready sugarbeets

By DALE HILDEBRANT, Farm & Ranch Guide

GRAND FORKS, N.D. – Once the word was out that the USDA and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had given the green light to Roundup Ready sugarbeets, it didn’t take long for a coalition of organizations to seek a federal court injunction asking for a delay until further studies were completed.

A lawsuit was filed in San Francisco, Calif., asking the USDA and APHIS be required to study the impacts on various segments of society, including business, environmental and consumer rights, before lifting the restrictions on Roundup Ready sugarbeets.

During the International Sugarbeet Institute, which was held in Grand Forks on March 5-6, Institute secretary Don Lilleboe read a statement from the American Sugarbeet Growers Associa-tion in response to the recently filed lawsuit.

In part, the statement said, “The plaintiffs have taken no action to try to impact the planting of Roundup Ready sugarbeets in 2008 and we anticipate that growers will proceed as originally contemplated, for the 2008 growing season.

“At the appropriate time we anticipate the sugarbeet growers and processors, along with the technology and seed companies, will ask the court to allow them to join in the lawsuit in support of USDA and APHIS.

“Barring any action by the plaintiffs in the next few weeks, the current parties to the litigation are scheduled to appear in court on May 10 for a routine scheduling conference.”

Those parties that are bringing the action against USDA and APHIS in-clude the Center for Food Safety, Sierra Club, Organic Seed Alliance and High Mowing Organic Seeds.

Similar action in the same San Francisco court resulted in Roundup Ready alfalfa being taken off the market until further studies are completed, and at this time the product hasn’t been allowed to re-enter the market.

Since many of the sugarbeet acres will have been planted before the initial court date on May 10, sugar industry officials see little impact on the 2008 planting plans.

This is welcome news to the sugarbeet seed companies, since they switched a large portion of their seed production program over to Roundup Ready seed and away from conventional seed production.

If Roundup Ready seeds had been banned, it might have caused a shortage of conventional sugarbeet seed.

Earlier this winter, American Crystal Sugar officials had predicted that approximately 50 percent of their acreage in 2008 would be in the form of Roundup Ready beets, and the Minn-Dak Cooperative had set a maximum of 50 percent of the acreage could be planted to the new technology seed.

However, in southern Minnesota, it was estimated only 15 percent of the acreage would be planted to Roundup Ready beets.

The plaintiffs are claiming that Roundup Ready sugarbeets could cause crop contamination, since most of the sugarbeet seeds are produced in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, where organic chard and table beet seeds are also produced.

In addition, the group is claiming that adding another crop to the Roundup Ready group will only add to the glyphosate weed resistance problem and they question genetically-engineered sugar making its way into the nation’s food supply.

“At a time when consumers are facing multiple food safety challenges, we don’t need more corporations messing with our food supply,” said the Sierra Club’s Neil Carman.

However, earlier this winter, American Crystal agronomist Dr. Alan Cattanach told growers attending a meeting in Fargo that the sugar is the same, whether it comes from a Roundup Ready sugarbeet or a conventional beet.

“Nutritionally it’s the same and the chemical composition is the same,” Cattanach said. “The Sugar Industry Biotech Council took 40 samples from around the world; cane sugar samples, beet sugar samples, organic sugar samples, samples from the U.S. and many foreign countries and had them analyzed by an independent laboratory and found that all of these sugar samples have exactly the same analytical profile.

The sugar is the same, regardless of the source. And the pulp and the molasses are the same, whether from a biotech or conventional beet.”
postmaster is offline Reply With Quote
postmaster
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by postmaster
Reply