NewsPlex.com

Local, organic food may be the top choice for some people, but others are fearing for its future.

Donald Patterson’s family history of farming dates back to the 1700s. He’s been doing it all his life, but he is concerned with biotech giant Monsanto’s impact on the industry.

“They have focused on creating transgenic seeds, which take the DNA from an unrelated species, generally it’s been a bacteria, and they bring that into the plant,” said Patterson.

Monsanto is the largest producer of genetically modified crops.

Patterson has organized a massive lawsuit against the company. The 83 plaintiffs in The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) v. Monsanto are made up of farmers, companies and agricultural organizations from across the United States and Canada. Two central Virginia-based companies, “Southern Exposure Seed Exchange” and “Countryside Organics” are also on the list.

Patterson and OSGATA say the patent on Monsanto’s seeds is a potential problem for organic farmers.

“We believe that they never should have been issued. That they have no utility. They’re destructive. They’re damaging,” said Patterson.

Patterson and others are concerned about what they call “transgenic trespassing,” when a neighboring farmer’s transgenic crops spread to an organic farmer’s field. He also says the patent protection leaves limited public research about the long-term health effects of transgenic food.

In the suit, OSGATA says:

“Not only do transgenic crops violate the property rights of farmers in the same as if a neighbor’s randy, fence-breaking bull impregnated your expensive purebred cattle, it violates the informed-consent health rights of consumers, because they have no way of knowing the long-term health impacts of even 1% of transgenic contamination in food.”

Patterson says many farmers who are victims of transgenic trespassing fear Monsanto will sue them for having its patent-protected seeds on their property.

Monsanto has sued farmers before, but the company says it does not act when trace amounts of their product unintentionally end up in a farmer’s field.

Thomas Helscher, Monsanto’s director of corporate affairs, sent the Newsplex this statement regarding the suit:

“The district court ruling dismissing the case (February, 2012) noted it was simply a transparent effort by Plaintiffs to create a controversy where none exists and further there was neither a history of behavior nor a reasonable likelihood that Monsanto would pursue patent infringement matters against the Plaintiffs. Farmers who have no interest in using Monsanto’s patented seed products have no rational basis to fear a lawsuit from Monsanto, and claims to the contrary, to quote from the district Court, are “groundless” and “baseless.”  As was stated in the Court, it has been, and remains, Monsanto’s policy not to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patents are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means. Nothing presented at the appellate hearing (January, 2013) contradicts this or establishes the Plaintiffs’ hypothetical assertions.

We believe all farmers should have the opportunity to select the production method of their choice – whether organic, conventional or improved seeds developed using biotechnology. All three production systems co-exist and contribute to meeting the needs of consumers.  Since the advent of biotech crops more than 15 years ago, both biotech and organic crop production have flourished.   We have no reason to think that will not continue to be the case.”

A New York judge dismissed the case in February of 2012. OSGATA appealed in January of this year. They are currently waiting for a decision from the appeals court on the dismissal and say they expect it to come soon.

Earlier in the week, the U.S. Supreme Court settled a separate case involving Monsanto. The unanimous decision ruled farmers may not use patented seed for more than one planting. If they do, they are responsible for damages.

The post Organic Farmers Rally Against Seed Patents appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

Image courtesy of Dirk Blankenhaus

Neonicotinoid insecticides have adverse effects not only on bees but also on freshwater invertebrates. Exposure to low but constant concentrations of these substances — which are highly soluble in water — has lethal effects on these aquatic organisms.

At the end of April, the EU imposed a 2-year ban on the use of neurotoxic agents belonging to the neonicotinoid group. In Switzerland, the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG) has followed suit, suspending the authorizations of three insecticides used on oilseed rape and maize fields. These measures have been taken in response to evidence that neonicotinoids are toxic to honeybees and are contributing to the decline of bee colonies.

Problems seen with constant exposure

An Eawag study published today in the journal PLOS ONE (Public Library of Science) now shows that at least one of the insecticides in this class also has toxic effects on freshwater invertebrates. In this study, native freshwater shrimps (gammarids) were exposed to pulsed high and to constant low concentrations of imidacloprid.

Peak concentrations typically occur when rain falls on farmland during or shortly after the application of insecticides; these soluble but persistent substances can then enter surface waters via runoff. Interestingly, pulses lasting no more than a day proved less harmful to the organisms than concentrations that were much lower but persisted for several days or weeks.

While organisms transferred to clean water after pulsed exposure recovered relatively rapidly, constant exposure led to starvation after 2 to 3 weeks. This was because the organisms’ mobility and feeding behaviour was impaired by the neurotoxin.

Failure of conventional toxicity testing

The slow starvation effect observed under constant exposure to low levels of neonicotinoids is not detected by conventional toxicity tests, as they are not carried out over a period of several weeks. In addition, the study indicated that seasonal and environmental factors can be crucial: the results of the experiments are significantly affected by organisms’ initial fitness and lipid reserves.

To eliminate these effects and to identify processes other than starvation that influence survival rates in aquatic organisms, the research team has also developed a mathematical model which makes it possible to predict harmful concentrations and exposure times.

The post Insecticides Lead to Starvation of Aquatic Organisms appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

Common Dreams
By Jacob Chamberlain

The U.S. State Department does the bidding of biotech giants like Monsanto around the world by “twisting the arms of countries” and engaging in vast public campaign schemes to push the sale of genetically modified seeds, according to a new report released Tuesday by Food & Water Watch.

The report, Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda, which pulls from over 900 State Department diplomatic cables (obtained via WikiLeaks), reveals an environment wherein US ambassadors act as sales representatives for the global biotech industry.

U.S. ambassadors and their staffs actively lobby foreign governments to adopt pro-biotechnology policies and laws, create “rigorous public relations campaigns to improve the image of biotechnology” and challenge “commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules — including opposing genetically engineered (GE) food labeling laws.”

“It really goes beyond promoting the U.S.’s biotech industry and agriculture,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “It really gets down to twisting the arms of countries and working to undermine local democratic movements that may be opposed to biotech crops, and pressuring foreign governments to also reduce the oversight of biotech crops.”

As FWW reports, the State Department has gone to great lengths to see that biotech companies’ desires are met:

• The U.S. State Department’s multifaceted efforts to promote the biotechnology industry overseas: The State Department targeted foreign reporters, hosted and coordinated pro-biotech conferences and public events and brought foreign opinion-makers to the United States on high-profile junkets to improve the image of agricultural biotechnology overseas and overcome widespread public opposition to GE crops and foods.
• The State Department’s coordinated campaign to promote biotech business interests: The State Department promoted not only pro-biotechnology policies but also the products of biotech companies. The strategy cables explicitly “protect the interests” of biotech exporters, “facilitate trade in agribiotech products” and encourage the cultivation of GE crops in more countries, especially in the developing world.
• The State Department’s determined advocacy to press the developing world to adopt biotech crops: The diplomatic cables document a coordinated effort to lobby countries in the developing world to pass legislation and implement regulations favored by the biotech seed industry. This study examines the State Department lobbying campaigns in Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria to pass pro-biotech laws.
• The State Department’s efforts to force other nations to accept biotech crop and food imports: The State Department works with the U.S. Trade Representative to promote the export of biotech crops and to force nations that do not want these imports to accept U.S. biotech foods and crops.

“It’s not surprising that Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow want to maintain and expand their control of the $15 billion global biotech seed market, but it’s appalling that the State Department is complicit in supporting their goals despite public and government opposition in several countries,” said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of Organic Consumers Association. “American taxpayer’s money should not be spent advancing the goals of a few giant biotech companies.”

“The biotech agriculture model using costly seeds and agrichemicals forces farmers onto a debt treadmill that is neither economically nor environmentally viable,” said Ben Burkett, President of the National Family Farm Coalition.  “An overwhelming number of farmers in the developing world reject biotech crops as a path to sustainable agricultural development or food sovereignty.”

“Thanks, Monsanto. And thanks, State Department. Not only are you selling seeds, you’re selling out democracy,” Hauter concludes.

The post Revealed: How US State Department ‘Twists Arms’ on Monsanto’s Behalf appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

Union of Concerned Scientists

WASHINGTON — U.S. agriculture is at a crossroads: continue the polluting, soil-depleting industrialized farming methods of the past, or invest in modern practices of the future. A policy brief and interactive web feature released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) shows how several key practices can produce the food we need today while protecting precious natural resources for the long term—benefiting American farmers, consumers and the environment.

“Industrial agriculture sounded good in the 1950s, but it’s not serving us well in the twenty-first century,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist with UCS’s Food and Environment Program and co-author of the policy brief. “To meet the environmental, resource, and production challenges of the future, scientists, policy makers and farmers must work together to invest in a more sustainable kind of agriculture.”

“The Healthy Farm: A Vision for U.S. Agriculture,” identifies and explains four key healthy farm practices that would modernize agriculture to meet today’s challenges:

• Operating farms as part of the natural landscape, preserving uncultivated areas that can harbor beneficial wildlife, actually reduce farmers’ costs and reduce water pollution;
• Growing and rotating a wider variety of crops, which can increase yields while reducing the need for chemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers;
• Reintegrating livestock and crops, reducing the problem of manure waste and enhancing soil fertility; and
• Growing cover crops to prevent erosion, reduce weeds, capture and hold nutrients in the soil, and protect farmers against drought.

“The benefits of healthy farms make them a no-brainer,” said Margaret Mellon, senior scientist with UCS’s Food and Environment Program and co-author. “Backed by science, these practices are productive and profitable, and ultimately benefit farmers, consumers, rural economies, and the environment. It’s a win-win.”

Of particular interest as farmers in much of the country face a predicted second year of extraordinary drought, several healthy farm practices can actually protect crops against extreme weather. For example, when planted between growing seasons over a period of years, cover crops improve the soil’s water-holding capacity, reducing the need for irrigation and making cash crops less vulnerable to drought.

The policy brief comes as Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduces the Balancing Food, Farm, and Environment Act, legislation to consolidate and fund conservation programs in the Farm Bill. And with debate on the Farm Bill expected this month, UCS is calling on the House and Senate agriculture committees to prioritize research and incentives to support healthy farm practices.

“Some farmers are already adopting healthy farming practices, but with the right support, research, and incentives, many more could make the switch,” said Gurian-Sherman. “Congress should support healthy farming as an investment in the future.”

View UCS’s interactive web feature to bring the healthy farm vision to life.

The post Congress Should Prioritize Modern, “Healthy Farm” Practices When Farm Bill Debate Re-Starts This Month appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

HELENA, Mont.

THE world’s worrisome decline in biodiversity is well known. Some experts say we are well on our way toward the sixth great extinction and that by 2100 half of all the world’s plant and animal species may disappear.

Yet one of the most important threats to biodiversity has received little attention — though it lies under our feet.

Scientists using new analytical techniques over the last decade have found that the world’s ocean of soil is one of our largest reservoirs of biodiversity. It contains almost one-third of all living organisms, according to the European Union’s Joint Research Center, but only about 1 percent of its micro-organisms have been identified, and the relationships among those myriad life-forms is poorly understood.

Soil is the foundation on which the house of terrestrial biodiversity is built. Without robust soil ecosystems, the world’s food web would be in trouble.

To understand more, scientists recently embarked on what they call the Global Soil Biodiversity Initiative to assess what is known about soil life, pinpoint where it is endangered and determine the health of the essential ecosystem services that soil provides.

They are not just looking at soil in remote, far-off landscapes. One of the more intensive studies is taking place in New York’s Central Park.

The focus is on the life that resides in the soil — the microbes, fungi, nematodes, mites and even gophers that make up a complex web of interrelationships.

A teaspoon of soil may have billions of microbes divided among 5,000 different types, thousands of species of fungi and protozoa, nematodes, mites and a couple of termite species. How these and other pieces all fit together is still largely a mystery.

“There’s a teeming organization below ground, a factory, with soil animals and microbes, each with their own role,” said Diana H. Wall, a professor of biology at Colorado State University who has studied soil biodiversity in Antarctica and Kansas over the last two decades and who is the scientific chairwoman of the soil biodiversity initiative. “A leaf falls, and earthworms and termites are constantly ripping and tearing it apart, and microbes and fungi pass the nutrients on to plants.”

Forget the term “dumb as dirt.” The complex soil ecosystem is highly evolved and sophisticated. It processes organic waste into soil. It filters and cleans much of the water we drink and the air we breathe by retaining dust and pathogens. It plays a large role in how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. Soil, with all of its organic matter, is second to the oceans as the largest carbon repository on the planet. Annual plowing, erosion and other mismanagement releases carbon in the form of carbon dioxide, and exacerbates climate change.

The last decade of research has overturned a key concept. For decades there was a saying among soil scientists — “everything is everywhere,” which meant that soil was largely the same across the globe. That has proved to be spectacularly untrue.

A 2003 study in the journal Ecosystems estimated that the biodiversity of nearly 5 percent of the nation’s soil was “in danger of substantial loss, or complete extinction, due to agriculture and urbanization,” though that was most likely a very conservative guess, since the planet’s soil was even more unexplored then than today, and study techniques were far less developed.

That means that species critical to some important functions could have already disappeared or be on their way out. That’s why the global soil assessment is a matter of some urgency.

There are numerous threats to soil life. Modern tillage agriculture is a big one, because it deprives soil life of organic matter it needs for food, allows it to dry out and adds pesticides, herbicides and synthetic nitrogen. Soil “sealing” from the asphalt and concrete of suburban sprawl destroys soil life, as do heavy machinery and pollution. Even long-ago insults like acid rain still take a toll on life in the soil by having made the soil more acidic.

THE problem is global. In nearly half of Africa, for example, overgrazing and intensive agriculture has destroyed topsoil and led to desertification.

Yet few things are more vital than healthy soil life. Our food supply begins in the soil. Wild plants need healthy soil to grow well, so other species can eat the leaves and seeds and fruit, and predators can eat the plant eaters.

Healthy soil can prevent human disease. Valley fever is found in the southwest United States and is caused by a fungus that becomes airborne when soil dries out and is inhaled. It is rapidly increasing. The soil system also plays what is thought to be a key, if poorly understood, role in the spread of cholera, fungal meningitis and other diseases, which live part of their life cycle in the soil.

Healthy soils also hold the cure for some diseases. Antibiotic compounds are the chemical weapons of competing soil microbes, and most of the antibiotics we use came from there. Scientists are searching soil in various places now for a new class of antibiotics to deal with antibiotic-resistant diseases. Who knows, the answer may lie underneath the fountains and sidewalks of Central Park.

New technologies that enable scientists to study the genes of soil microbes and to track microscopic amounts of carbon and nitrogen as they pass through the soil ecosystem have provided leaps in the understanding of soil ecology. But the more scientists learn, the more they realize how little they know.

Global warming will no doubt greatly compound the threats to soil biodiversity. Food security is a big concern. What will happen to crops as the earth gets warmer? Slight changes in temperatures and moisture can have profound impacts on soil, altering the composition of soil life and the types of plants that will grow. We may no longer be able, for example, to grow wheat in Kansas.

Some plants are expected to gradually migrate north to cooler climates as it warms, but others may not be able to adapt to new soil communities. “The world above ground and the world below are very tightly linked,” said Dr. Wall.

Scientists are also discovering that a healthy soil ecosystem may sustain plants naturally, without chemical inputs. “The greater the soil diversity, the fewer diseases that emerge in plants,” said Eric B. Nelson, who studies soil and disease ecology at Cornell. Insects are also deterred by plants grown in healthy soils, he said.

What can farmers and gardeners do to protect their soils? Practice no-till agriculture for one, Dr. Wall said, which means not plowing every year and allowing dead vegetation to decompose. Backyard gardeners can do the same. Avoiding synthetic chemicals is also important. Adding compost, especially worm compost, can help by making soil ecosystems more robust.

The topic is starting to get the attention it deserves. Dr. Wall was just awarded the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, a distinguished prize that comes with $200,000 that she says plans to use for her research. “It’s showtime for soil biodiversity,” Dr. Wall said.

The post The Hidden World Under Our Feet appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

Consumers Union

Image courtesy of LtPowers

Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, commended the Vermont House of Representatives for today’s historic vote passing H-112, requiring the labeling of all genetically engineered (GE) food sold in that state, by an overwhelming margin of 99 to 42. The bill now moves to the Vermont Senate, which will take it up when the legislature returns January 2014. If the Senate passes the bill, Vermont will be the first in the nation to mandate GE labeling.

“Vermont’s historic vote today is a major victory for consumer demand for the labeling of genetically engineered food,” said Michael Hansen, PhD, a biologist and Senior Scientist at Consumers Union. “We commend the members of the Vermont House who voted for this bill, despite an onslaught of industry lobbying against it.”

The Vermont House is the first state legislative body to pass a bill to label GE food, although the state of Alaska passed legislation requiring labeling of GE fish. GE food is required to be labeled in 62 foreign countries, including all of the European Union, Japan, Korea, Australia, and India.

The Vermont bill will go into effect when two other states have passed similar legislation, or within two years from the date of signing. Labeling bills are also pending in Maine, Connecticut, and several other states. “All these states will be hard fought,” said Hansen.

A ballot initiative in California lost in November 2012 by a small margin, 51 to 49 percent. Industry opponents outspent supporters by roughly five to one. A similar GE labeling initiative will be on the ballot in WashingtonState in November 2013. A federal bill to require GE food labeling was recently introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR).

Interest in labeling bills has increased since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) completed the final steps of its approval process for GE salmon this year. If approved, the salmon would be the first GE animal on the U.S. market and the FDA has said that it does not intend to require labeling of it. Nearly 2 million people recently told the FDA that they oppose approval of GE salmon. H-112 would also require the labeling of GE salmon.

Consumers Union has long supported labeling of GE food and stricter regulatory oversight of GE crops.

# # #

Contact: Naomi Starkman, nstarkman@gmail.com, 917.539.3924

The post Hhistoric Vermont House Vote on Labeling GE Food appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

BBC

The Cambridge-based National Institute of Agricultural Botany has combined an ancient ancestor of wheat with a modern variety to produce a new strain.

In early trials, the resulting crop seemed bigger and stronger than the current modern wheat varieties.

It will take at least five years of tests and regulatory approval before it is harvested by farmers.

Some farmers, however, are urging new initiatives between the food industry, scientists and government.

They believe the regulatory process needs to be speeded up to ensure that the global food security demands of the next few decades can be met, says the BBC’s Tom Heap.

Primitive grains

One in five of all the calories consumed round the world come from wheat.

But despite steady improvement in the late 20th century, the last 15 years have seen little growth in the average wheat harvest from each acre in Britain.

Just last month, cereal maker Weetabix announced that it would have to scale back production of some of its products due to a poor wheat harvest in the UK.

Now British scientists think they may have found the answer to increasing productivity again.

Around 10,000 years ago wheat evolved from goat grass and other primitive grains.

The scientists used cross-pollination and seed embryo transfer technology to transfer some of the resilience of the ancient ancestor of wheat into modern British varieties.

The process required no genetic modification of the crops.

The post Cambridge-based Scientists Develop ‘Superwheat’ appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

Food rights activists from around North America will meet in Baraboo, WI at the Sauk County Courthouse May 20th – 24th to support Wisconsin dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger and food sovereignty. Hershberger, whose trial begins May 20, is charged with four criminal misdemeanors that could land this husband and father in county jail for up to 30 months with fines of over $10,000.

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP), is spending tens of thousands of dollars to prevent Wisconsin citizens from having access to the foods of their choice. The method is to prosecute peaceful farmers like Hershberger, who have contracted directly with individuals actively seeking fresh farm foods, including raw milk and other raw dairy products.

Hershberger is specifically charged with providing raw milk for his members and is facing a week long jury trial with over 70 witnesses. The state will allege he was violating state dairy licensing regulations and defying DATCP orders.

At the center of this case is the billion dollar conventional dairy industry.  Dairy is a global commodity, WI ranks 2nd in the nation behind California in milk production. Raw milk proponents have suggested that state regulators are acting under pressure from powerful dairy industry interests while milk is a potent competitor in the marketplace.

In a separate case in 2011, Wisconsin Judge Patrick J. Fiedler ruled …”no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of your choice… no right to contract with a farmer… no right to own a cow.”  Three weeks later he resigned from the bench and joined a law firm that represents Monsanto – the developer of the first commercialized GMO product, BGH, a growth hormone injected into dairy cows to increase the animal’s milk production.

Hershberger’s supporters contend that everyone needs to get involved and needs to support our dedicated, ethical, organic family farmers and direct marketers. Furthermore, they are calling for development of local food sovereignty laws and an end to government bullying when citizens opt out of the commercial food supply system.

After the trial each day, members of Vernon Hershberger’s Grazin Acres food club are inviting the public to join them at the Al Ringling Theater across the street from the courthouse to hear presentations by leaders in the food rights movement. Notable speakers include Virginia farmer Joel Salatin, author, blogger, David Gumpert, California raw milk producer and activist Mark McAfee,  founder of The Cornucopia Institute, Mark Kastel, constitutional scholar Michael Badnarik, and many more.

If you have the opportunity during the week of May 20-24, the open discussion of the facts surrounding the loss of the right to produce and consume the foods of one’s choice should prove both fruitful and educational.

For more information, visit:  http://www.farmfoodfreedom.org/event/vernon-hershberger-trial

The post Grow Your Own Freedom! appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

Abstract:  Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise.

Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate’s inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics.

Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport.

Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.

1. Introduction

The foodstuffs of the Western diet, primarily grown by industrial agriculture, are increasingly being produced using a two-part system of engineered plant seeds and toxic chemical application. Novel bacterial genes are incorporated through genetic engineering, and toxic chemical residues are readily taken up by the engineered plants. Research indicates that the new bacterial RNA and DNA present in genetically engineered plants, providing chemical herbicide resistance and other traits, have not yet fully understood biological effects. This paper however, will only examine the effects of the chemical glyphosate, the most popular herbicide on the planet.

Glyphosate (N-phosphonomethylglycine), the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup®, is the main herbicide in use today in the United States, and increasingly throughout the World, in agriculture and in lawn maintenance, especially now that the patent has expired. 80% of genetically modified crops, particularly corn, soy, canola, cotton, sugar beets and most recently alfalfa, are specifically targeted towards the introduction of genes resistant to glyphosate, the so-called “Roundup Ready® feature” In humans, only small amounts (~2%) of ingested glyphosate are metabolized to aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), and the rest enters the blood stream and is eventually eliminated through the urine [1].

Studies have shown sharp increases in glyphosate contamination in streams in the Midwestern United States following the mid 1990s, pointing to its increasing role as the herbicide of choice in agriculture [2].

A now common practice of crop desiccation through herbicide administration shortly before the harvest assures an increased glyphosate presence in food sources as well [3–5]. The industry asserts that glyphosate is nearly nontoxic to mammals [6,7], and therefore it is not a problem if glyphosate is ingested in food sources. Acutely, it is claimed to be less toxic than aspirin [1,6]. As a consequence, measurement of its presence in food is practically nonexistent.

A vocal minority of experts believes that glyphosate may instead be much more toxic than is claimed, although the effects are only apparent after a considerable time lapse. Thus, while short-term studies in rodents have shown no apparent toxicity [8], studies involving life-long exposure in rodents have demonstrated liver and kidney dysfunction and a greatly increased risk of cancer, with shortened lifespan [9].

Glyphosate’s claimed mechanism of action in plants is the disruption of the shikimate pathway, which is involved with the synthesis of the essential aromatic amino acids, phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan [10].

The currently accepted dogma is that glyphosate is not harmful to humans or to any mammals because the shikimate pathway is absent in all animals. However, this pathway is present in gut bacteria, which play an important and heretofore largely overlooked role in human physiology [11–14] through an integrated biosemiotic relationship with the human host. In addition to aiding digestion, the gut microbiota synthesize vitamins, detoxify xenobiotics, and participitate in immune system homeostasis and gastrointestinal tract permeability [14]. Furthermore, dietary factors modulate the microbial composition of the gut [15].

The incidence of inflammatory bowel diseases such as juvenile onset Crohn’s disease has increased substantially in the last decade in Western Europe [16] and the United States [17]. It is reasonable to suspect that glyphosate’s impact on gut bacteria may be contributing to these diseases and conditions.

However, the fact that female rats are highly susceptible to mammary tumors following chronic exposure to glyphosate [9] suggests that there may be something else going on. Our systematic search of the literature has led us to the realization that many of the health problems that appear to be associated with a Western diet could be explained by biological disruptions that have already been attributed to glyphosate.

These include digestive issues, obesity, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, Parkinson’s disease, liver diseases, and cancer, among others. While many other environmental toxins obviously also contribute to these diseases and conditions, we believe that glyphosate may be the most significant environmental toxin, mainly because it is pervasive and it is often handled carelessly due to its perceived nontoxicity. In this paper, we will develop the argument that the recent alarming increase in all of these health issues can be traced back to a combination of gut dysbiosis, impaired sulfate transport, and suppression of the activity of the various members of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) family of enzymes.

We have found clear evidence that glyphosate disrupts gut bacteria and suppresses the CYP enzyme class. The connection to sulfate transport is more indirect, but justifiable from basic principles of biophysics.  In the remainder of this paper, we will first provide evidence from the literature that explains some of the ways in which glyphosate adversely affects plants, microbes, amphibians and mammals.

Section 3 will discuss the role that gut dysbiosis, arguably resulting from glyphosate exposure, plays in inflammatory bowel disease and its relationship to autism.

Section 4 argues that the excess synthesis of phenolic compounds associated with glyphosate exposure represents a strategy to compensate for impairments in the transport of free sulfate.

Section 5 will provide evidence that glyphosate inhibits CYP enzymes.

Section 6 explains how obesity can arise from depletion of serum tryptophan due to its sequestering by macrophages responding to inflammation.

Section 7 shows how extreme tryptophan depletion can lead to impaired nutrient absorption and anorexia nervosa.

Section 8 provides a brief review of all the roles played by CYP enzymes in metabolism.

Section 9 discusses a likely consequence to glyphosate’s disruption of the CYP-analog enzyme, endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS).

Section 10 shows how glyphosate’s effects could plausibly lead to brain-related disorders such as autism, dementia, depression, and Parkinson’s disease.

Section 11 mentions several other health factors that can potentially be linked to glyphosate, including reproductive issues and cancer.

Section 12 discusses the available evidence that glyphosate is contaminating our food supplies, especially in recent years. Following a discussion section, we sum up our findings with a brief conclusion.

To read the full study, click here.

The post Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

In the week prior to the vote, The Cornucopia Institute initiated a petition drive, in support of As You Sow, the shareholder activism group that filed the resolution, to collect signatures urging Abbott to remove GMOs from its infant formula. In just a week’s time, we collected nearly 15,000 signatures. Thank you to all who signed the petition.

Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, presented these signatures at the Abbott shareholder meeting prior to the vote.

What was the outcome of the vote? A paltry 3.21% of Abbott Laboratories shareholders voted in favor of the non-GMO policy. “While this might appear to be a low vote, historically resolutions on GMOs take time to build momentum,” said Andrew Behar.

“At As You Sow we have seen first-year shareholder campaigns with low votes,” Behair explained, “and we know that with persistence these votes have increased over time and have led to lasting change. It is our task to continue to educate shareholders and management about the risks associated with company practices,” he said.

In other words: this campaign is far from over.

Nobody should be eating GMO foods, especially not babies. GMOs have not been adequately tested for safety, and results from a number of animal studies point to potential harm. What is especially troubling is that long-term safety tests are non-existent.

Given that 92% of soybeans used in processed foods comes from genetically engineered seed, soy-based infant formula is extremely likely to contain GMOs. And dairy-based formula contains soy oil, also likely derived from GMO soy. A sure way to avoid GMOs in infant formula is to buy organic—GMOs are prohibited in organic food.

Until infant formula makers like Abbott Laboratories stop using GMO ingredients, hundreds of thousands of newborns and infants will be unwitting participants in a huge, uncontrolled experiment with the health of the next generation. Cornucopia will continue the fight to make sure that all formula-fed babies are protected from the potential harm of GMOs.

The post Pull GMOs Out of Similac? Shareholders Vote No appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.