Vegetarian Discussion: Wales Set To Ban GM Crops

Wales Set To Ban GM Crops
Posts: 64

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)

Old Codger
2008-03-23 05:14:08 EST
Wales set to ban GM crops
Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail

PROPOSALS by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban
genetically modified crops from Wales.

New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in
applying a strict “polluter pays” principle that will put an end even
to trial plantings.

GM companies have consistently resisted efforts to make them accept
responsibility for “leaks” of GM material and Defra’s proposals for
England stop short of pinning liability on the operator or permit
holder in the event of environmental or economic damage.

But in Wales the WAG proposals make GM companies like Monsanto and
Bayer and the farmers who plant GM crops legally liable for
contamination or “genetic trespass” – even if they have a licence and
even if scientific knowledge at the time leads them to believe the
material was harmless.

The move puts clear water between the administrations in Cardiff Bay
and London and takes Welsh opposition to GM science to new levels.

“We have a particular commitment on GM,” said Wales Rural Affairs
Minister Elin Jones.

“It was reinforced by the One Wales Government programme last year
where we have a commitment to ensure the maximum restriction of GM
crops in Wales.

“We are now consulting on implementing regulations that reflect our
aspirations and promoting the concept that the polluter pays.”

The consultation period ends in mid-May, and Ms Jones said she did not
foresee any particular difficulties in taking a different course from
England, where GM crop farmers would become liable in the event of
contamination on the Welsh side of the border.

“Border issues will arise along any boundaries between EU countries,
but it’s the right of this Assembly Government to exercise the powers
we have to pursue our political aspiration,” she said.

“This is supported by a number of environmental groups and certain
farming interests also want us to retain our GM free status.”

The supporters include the Farmers’ Union of Wales, which is a member
of the GM Free Alliance – a group of environmental and countryside
organisations which includes the RSPB, Friends of the Earth Cymru and
GM Free Cymru.

Organic farmer and FUW vice-president Brian Walters said the threat of
cross-contamination was one of the major concerns that led the FUW to
oppose GM crops.

“Obviously it would be completely unfair if a non-GM farmer’s income
suffered as a result of wind or insect-borne cross-pollination that
was beyond their control, and we welcome WAG’s suggestion that a more
pragmatic approach be taken in Wales,” said Mr Walters.

“The draft Welsh regulations provide security for Welsh farmers,
whereas Defra has left English farmers that are put at risk out in the
cold.”

The GM Free Wales Alliance has written to Elin Jones to congratulate
her and the Assembly Government on what they describe as “the latest
step in the protection of Welsh farming and the Welsh environment”.

Brian John of GM Free Cymru said he expected the other devolved
administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to follow the Welsh
lead.

“There is a degree of frustration that Westminster continues to vote
in favour of GM approval at EU level despite the reservations that the
other three authorities have,” said Mr John.

“Westminster always pushes a pro-GM agenda in the EU, despite the fact
that it’s not the majority view but a distinctly English line.”

Mr John said anti-GM campaigners were delighted with the Welsh
approach

“The GM industry has always refused to accept liability on the basis
that if something is harmless, as they say it is, they can’t be liable
if something goes wrong,” said Mr John.

“The Welsh regulations say that neither the state-of-the-art nor the
legal permit defences can be used and is exactly what we and bodies
like the RSPB have been asking for.”

A spokesman for Monsanto said the proposal was inconsistent with EU
guidelines on co-existence with conventional and organic crops.

“These specify that member state rules should respect the right of
both non-GM and GM farmers to grow the crops of their choice,” he
said.

“Furthermore, since approximately 85% of compound animal feed
throughout the UK already contains imported GM ingredients, due to the
large shortage of home produced protein, we would have concern that in
the long run this proposal would put the majority of Welsh livestock
farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage, and merely drive
livestock production overseas.”

He said the cultivation of GM crops is increasing world-wide, with
more than 100 million hectares grown every year by 10 million farmers.

“Most of the world is moving on from the tired old debate of 10 years
ago and accepting that biotechnology has a place to play alongside a
range of farming methods,” he said.



Pearl
2008-03-23 05:48:20 EST
"Old Codger" <oldcodger@anyoldwherewilldo.com> wrote in message news:1p7cu3d3jl5h7qdgkt7k26182gp944qm8a@4ax.com...
> Wales set to ban GM crops
> Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail
>
> PROPOSALS by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban
> genetically modified crops from Wales.
>
> New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in
> applying a strict "polluter pays" principle that will put an end even
> to trial plantings.
>
> GM companies have consistently resisted efforts to make them accept
> responsibility for "leaks" of GM material and Defra's proposals for
> England stop short of pinning liability on the operator or permit
> holder in the event of environmental or economic damage.
>
> But in Wales the WAG proposals make GM companies like Monsanto and
> Bayer and the farmers who plant GM crops legally liable for
> contamination or "genetic trespass" - even if they have a licence and
> even if scientific knowledge at the time leads them to believe the
> material was harmless.
>
> The move puts clear water between the administrations in Cardiff Bay
> and London and takes Welsh opposition to GM science to new levels.
>
> "We have a particular commitment on GM," said Wales Rural Affairs
> Minister Elin Jones.
>
> "It was reinforced by the One Wales Government programme last year
> where we have a commitment to ensure the maximum restriction of GM
> crops in Wales.
>
> "We are now consulting on implementing regulations that reflect our
> aspirations and promoting the concept that the polluter pays."
>
> The consultation period ends in mid-May, and Ms Jones said she did not
> foresee any particular difficulties in taking a different course from
> England, where GM crop farmers would become liable in the event of
> contamination on the Welsh side of the border.
>
> "Border issues will arise along any boundaries between EU countries,
> but it's the right of this Assembly Government to exercise the powers
> we have to pursue our political aspiration," she said.
>
> "This is supported by a number of environmental groups and certain
> farming interests also want us to retain our GM free status."
>
> The supporters include the Farmers' Union of Wales, which is a member
> of the GM Free Alliance - a group of environmental and countryside
> organisations which includes the RSPB, Friends of the Earth Cymru and
> GM Free Cymru.
>
> Organic farmer and FUW vice-president Brian Walters said the threat of
> cross-contamination was one of the major concerns that led the FUW to
> oppose GM crops.
>
> "Obviously it would be completely unfair if a non-GM farmer's income
> suffered as a result of wind or insect-borne cross-pollination that
> was beyond their control, and we welcome WAG's suggestion that a more
> pragmatic approach be taken in Wales," said Mr Walters.
>
> "The draft Welsh regulations provide security for Welsh farmers,
> whereas Defra has left English farmers that are put at risk out in the
> cold."
>
> The GM Free Wales Alliance has written to Elin Jones to congratulate
> her and the Assembly Government on what they describe as "the latest
> step in the protection of Welsh farming and the Welsh environment".
>
> Brian John of GM Free Cymru said he expected the other devolved
> administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to follow the Welsh
> lead.
>
> "There is a degree of frustration that Westminster continues to vote
> in favour of GM approval at EU level despite the reservations that the
> other three authorities have," said Mr John.
>
> "Westminster always pushes a pro-GM agenda in the EU, despite the fact
> that it's not the majority view but a distinctly English line."
>
> Mr John said anti-GM campaigners were delighted with the Welsh
> approach
>
> "The GM industry has always refused to accept liability on the basis
> that if something is harmless, as they say it is, they can't be liable
> if something goes wrong," said Mr John.
>
> "The Welsh regulations say that neither the state-of-the-art nor the
> legal permit defences can be used and is exactly what we and bodies
> like the RSPB have been asking for."
>
> A spokesman for Monsanto said the proposal was inconsistent with EU
> guidelines on co-existence with conventional and organic crops.
>
> "These specify that member state rules should respect the right of
> both non-GM and GM farmers to grow the crops of their choice," he
> said.
>
> "Furthermore, since approximately 85% of compound animal feed
> throughout the UK already contains imported GM ingredients, due to the
> large shortage of home produced protein, we would have concern that in
> the long run this proposal would put the majority of Welsh livestock
> farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage, and merely drive
> livestock production overseas."
>
> He said the cultivation of GM crops is increasing world-wide, with
> more than 100 million hectares grown every year by 10 million farmers.
>
> "Most of the world is moving on from the tired old debate of 10 years
> ago and accepting that biotechnology has a place to play alongside a
> range of farming methods," he said.

/Really/.

'New Statesman
Environment

The secret GM invasion

Gundula Azeez
Published 20 November 2007

2 comments

A Soil Associaition study has found that many supermarkets are
selling products from animals fed on GM crops, despite having
'non-GM' policies

For over a decade, the public has rejected GM foods. Intuitive
concerns had been reinforced by the highly publicised findings
of the first Government sponsored animal trials, in which strange
lesions were found in the guts of GM-fed rats. To their credit, the
supermarkets adopted non-GM policies and, by October 2002,
they were using no GM (genetically modified) ingredients in their
own-brand products.

Yet, for some years the Soil Association and other organisations
have been concerned about the use of GM animal feed. Due to a
legal loop-hole, although foods or animal feeds that directly
contain GM ingredients must be labelled as 'GM', there is no such
requirement for meat and dairy foods produced from animals fed
on GM crops.

Any use of GM animal feed could thus be kept hidden from
consumers. Last year, in noticeably evasive replies to letters from
our supporters, the supermarkets admitted that their non-GM
policies did not cover animal feed. The Soil Association decided
to conduct an in-depth investigation.

Our findings - presented in our report, Silent invasion - the hidden
use of GM crops in livestock feed - are deeply concerning. By
testing animal feeds and reviewing the industry's sourcing policies,
we have found that high levels of GM animal feed are being used.
73% of the feeds we tested contained some GM soya and 75% were
labelled as 'GM'. Based on our findings, around 60% of the maize
and 30% of the soya in the dairy and pig sectors are GM.

What this means is that nearly all non-organic milk, dairy products
(such as cheese and yoghurt) and pork products sold in UK shops
and restaurants are produced from GM-fed animals. So, most
consumers are unwittingly eating foods produced from GM crops
every day.

We also reviewed progress on the science of the safety of GM crops,
since the early days of the debate when there was little to go on. The
Food Standards Agency had been assuring consumers that they
would not be exposed to GM material by eating foods from GM-fed
animals. However, four studies by different scientific teams have now
found that small amounts of GM DNA can be detected in milk and
tissues from GM-fed animals.

It also turns out that the first animal feeding trials were not flukes.
Very many of the animal trials carried out since then have found
deeply worrying effects. These include toxic effects in body organs,
allergic reactions, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in the
offspring. This raises serious questions about how GM-fed animals
can be considered suitable for producing human food.

In the view of the Soil Association, there has been a failure of both
the market and the scientific advisory process. The biotechnology
industry has managed to persuade many normally clear-minded people,
sadly including many scientists, that they should support GM crops if
they are 'pro-science'.

The important fact that the science has actually emerged against GM
crops has gone unnoticed. Perhaps it would help to point out that
genetic engineering is not a science, it is only a technique. Rejection
of GM does not mean a rejection of science.

Until the scientific community come to terms with the research and
supports a responsible - and genuinely science-based - approach,
the Soil Association strongly recommends that people try to avoid
foods produced from GM-fed animals. Among the supermarkets,
Marks-and-Spencer is far ahead of the others, with all of their milk
and fresh meat produced from non-GM feed. We urge other
supermarkets and catering companies to follow their lead and to
meanwhile to label any products from GM-fed animals so that at
least people can choose.


2 comments from readers

geoff.gibbins
20 November 2007

An interesting article, with some interesting implications. If the public
really has been mislead into eating GM crops for years, then surely
we would expect to see signs of this from a public health perspective?

Isn't there now a responsibility for the anti-GM lobby to produce
findings that this has had a deleterious effect on the health of the
meat-eating population? If we're going to extend the analogy,
shouldn't we all have strange lesions in our guts by now?

If not, maybe such 'intuitive concern' might be shown to be nothing
more than superstition... just a thought.

___________________________________________________

fran
20 November 2007

The Canadian government tried to do post market evaluation of the
health of people eating GM food but abandoned it as too difficult.
Part of the difficutly lies in the lack of labelling.

There has been a documented health disaster with a GM produced
food supplement, L-tryptophan. 100 people died and 5000 were
injured, some permanently. This was only picked up and traced to
the GM produced supplement because the symptoms came on
suddenly and were dramatic. They included pain, swelling, coughs,
rashes, physical weakness, visual problems, hardening of the skin
memory problems and paralysis. It still took several years for the
disease to be identified and the source traced.

If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
the introduction of GM soy.

The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
http://www.GeneticRoulette.com

http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004



Old Codger
2008-03-23 05:53:43 EST
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:48:20 -0000, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie>
wrote:

>"Old Codger" <oldcodger@anyoldwherewilldo.com> wrote in message news:1p7cu3d3jl5h7qdgkt7k26182gp944qm8a@4ax.com...
>> Wales set to ban GM crops
>> Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail
>>
>> PROPOSALS by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban
>> genetically modified crops from Wales.
>>
>> New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in
>> applying a strict "polluter pays" principle that will put an end even
>> to trial plantings.
>>
>> GM companies have consistently resisted efforts to make them accept
>> responsibility for "leaks" of GM material and Defra's proposals for
>> England stop short of pinning liability on the operator or permit
>> holder in the event of environmental or economic damage.
>>
>> But in Wales the WAG proposals make GM companies like Monsanto and
>> Bayer and the farmers who plant GM crops legally liable for
>> contamination or "genetic trespass" - even if they have a licence and
>> even if scientific knowledge at the time leads them to believe the
>> material was harmless.
>>
>> The move puts clear water between the administrations in Cardiff Bay
>> and London and takes Welsh opposition to GM science to new levels.
>>
>> "We have a particular commitment on GM," said Wales Rural Affairs
>> Minister Elin Jones.
>>
>> "It was reinforced by the One Wales Government programme last year
>> where we have a commitment to ensure the maximum restriction of GM
>> crops in Wales.
>>
>> "We are now consulting on implementing regulations that reflect our
>> aspirations and promoting the concept that the polluter pays."
>>
>> The consultation period ends in mid-May, and Ms Jones said she did not
>> foresee any particular difficulties in taking a different course from
>> England, where GM crop farmers would become liable in the event of
>> contamination on the Welsh side of the border.
>>
>> "Border issues will arise along any boundaries between EU countries,
>> but it's the right of this Assembly Government to exercise the powers
>> we have to pursue our political aspiration," she said.
>>
>> "This is supported by a number of environmental groups and certain
>> farming interests also want us to retain our GM free status."
>>
>> The supporters include the Farmers' Union of Wales, which is a member
>> of the GM Free Alliance - a group of environmental and countryside
>> organisations which includes the RSPB, Friends of the Earth Cymru and
>> GM Free Cymru.
>>
>> Organic farmer and FUW vice-president Brian Walters said the threat of
>> cross-contamination was one of the major concerns that led the FUW to
>> oppose GM crops.
>>
>> "Obviously it would be completely unfair if a non-GM farmer's income
>> suffered as a result of wind or insect-borne cross-pollination that
>> was beyond their control, and we welcome WAG's suggestion that a more
>> pragmatic approach be taken in Wales," said Mr Walters.
>>
>> "The draft Welsh regulations provide security for Welsh farmers,
>> whereas Defra has left English farmers that are put at risk out in the
>> cold."
>>
>> The GM Free Wales Alliance has written to Elin Jones to congratulate
>> her and the Assembly Government on what they describe as "the latest
>> step in the protection of Welsh farming and the Welsh environment".
>>
>> Brian John of GM Free Cymru said he expected the other devolved
>> administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to follow the Welsh
>> lead.
>>
>> "There is a degree of frustration that Westminster continues to vote
>> in favour of GM approval at EU level despite the reservations that the
>> other three authorities have," said Mr John.
>>
>> "Westminster always pushes a pro-GM agenda in the EU, despite the fact
>> that it's not the majority view but a distinctly English line."
>>
>> Mr John said anti-GM campaigners were delighted with the Welsh
>> approach
>>
>> "The GM industry has always refused to accept liability on the basis
>> that if something is harmless, as they say it is, they can't be liable
>> if something goes wrong," said Mr John.
>>
>> "The Welsh regulations say that neither the state-of-the-art nor the
>> legal permit defences can be used and is exactly what we and bodies
>> like the RSPB have been asking for."
>>
>> A spokesman for Monsanto said the proposal was inconsistent with EU
>> guidelines on co-existence with conventional and organic crops.
>>
>> "These specify that member state rules should respect the right of
>> both non-GM and GM farmers to grow the crops of their choice," he
>> said.
>>
>> "Furthermore, since approximately 85% of compound animal feed
>> throughout the UK already contains imported GM ingredients, due to the
>> large shortage of home produced protein, we would have concern that in
>> the long run this proposal would put the majority of Welsh livestock
>> farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage, and merely drive
>> livestock production overseas."
>>
>> He said the cultivation of GM crops is increasing world-wide, with
>> more than 100 million hectares grown every year by 10 million farmers.
>>
>> "Most of the world is moving on from the tired old debate of 10 years
>> ago and accepting that biotechnology has a place to play alongside a
>> range of farming methods," he said.
>
>/Really/.
>
>'New Statesman
>Environment
>
>The secret GM invasion
>
>Gundula Azeez
>Published 20 November 2007
>
>2 comments
>
>A Soil Associaition study has found that many supermarkets are
>selling products from animals fed on GM crops, despite having
>'non-GM' policies
>
>For over a decade, the public has rejected GM foods. Intuitive
>concerns had been reinforced by the highly publicised findings
>of the first Government sponsored animal trials, in which strange
>lesions were found in the guts of GM-fed rats. To their credit, the
>supermarkets adopted non-GM policies and, by October 2002,
>they were using no GM (genetically modified) ingredients in their
>own-brand products.
>
>Yet, for some years the Soil Association and other organisations
>have been concerned about the use of GM animal feed. Due to a
>legal loop-hole, although foods or animal feeds that directly
>contain GM ingredients must be labelled as 'GM', there is no such
>requirement for meat and dairy foods produced from animals fed
>on GM crops.
>
>Any use of GM animal feed could thus be kept hidden from
>consumers. Last year, in noticeably evasive replies to letters from
>our supporters, the supermarkets admitted that their non-GM
>policies did not cover animal feed. The Soil Association decided
>to conduct an in-depth investigation.
>
>Our findings - presented in our report, Silent invasion - the hidden
>use of GM crops in livestock feed - are deeply concerning. By
>testing animal feeds and reviewing the industry's sourcing policies,
>we have found that high levels of GM animal feed are being used.
>73% of the feeds we tested contained some GM soya and 75% were
>labelled as 'GM'. Based on our findings, around 60% of the maize
>and 30% of the soya in the dairy and pig sectors are GM.
>
>What this means is that nearly all non-organic milk, dairy products
>(such as cheese and yoghurt) and pork products sold in UK shops
>and restaurants are produced from GM-fed animals. So, most
>consumers are unwittingly eating foods produced from GM crops
>every day.
>
>We also reviewed progress on the science of the safety of GM crops,
>since the early days of the debate when there was little to go on. The
>Food Standards Agency had been assuring consumers that they
>would not be exposed to GM material by eating foods from GM-fed
>animals. However, four studies by different scientific teams have now
>found that small amounts of GM DNA can be detected in milk and
>tissues from GM-fed animals.
>
>It also turns out that the first animal feeding trials were not flukes.
>Very many of the animal trials carried out since then have found
>deeply worrying effects. These include toxic effects in body organs,
>allergic reactions, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in the
>offspring. This raises serious questions about how GM-fed animals
>can be considered suitable for producing human food.
>
>In the view of the Soil Association, there has been a failure of both
>the market and the scientific advisory process. The biotechnology
>industry has managed to persuade many normally clear-minded people,
>sadly including many scientists, that they should support GM crops if
>they are 'pro-science'.
>
>The important fact that the science has actually emerged against GM
>crops has gone unnoticed. Perhaps it would help to point out that
>genetic engineering is not a science, it is only a technique. Rejection
>of GM does not mean a rejection of science.
>
>Until the scientific community come to terms with the research and
>supports a responsible - and genuinely science-based - approach,
>the Soil Association strongly recommends that people try to avoid
>foods produced from GM-fed animals. Among the supermarkets,
>Marks-and-Spencer is far ahead of the others, with all of their milk
>and fresh meat produced from non-GM feed. We urge other
>supermarkets and catering companies to follow their lead and to
>meanwhile to label any products from GM-fed animals so that at
>least people can choose.
>
>
>2 comments from readers
>
>geoff.gibbins
>20 November 2007
>
>An interesting article, with some interesting implications. If the public
>really has been mislead into eating GM crops for years, then surely
>we would expect to see signs of this from a public health perspective?
>
>Isn't there now a responsibility for the anti-GM lobby to produce
>findings that this has had a deleterious effect on the health of the
>meat-eating population? If we're going to extend the analogy,
>shouldn't we all have strange lesions in our guts by now?
>
>If not, maybe such 'intuitive concern' might be shown to be nothing
>more than superstition... just a thought.
>
>___________________________________________________
>
>fran
>20 November 2007
>
>The Canadian government tried to do post market evaluation of the
>health of people eating GM food but abandoned it as too difficult.
>Part of the difficutly lies in the lack of labelling.
>
>There has been a documented health disaster with a GM produced
>food supplement, L-tryptophan. 100 people died and 5000 were
>injured, some permanently. This was only picked up and traced to
>the GM produced supplement because the symptoms came on
>suddenly and were dramatic. They included pain, swelling, coughs,
>rashes, physical weakness, visual problems, hardening of the skin
>memory problems and paralysis. It still took several years for the
>disease to be identified and the source traced.
>
>If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
>diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
>to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
>the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
>the introduction of GM soy.
>
>The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
>foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
>show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
>Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
>He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
>http://www.GeneticRoulette.com
>
>http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004
>


Maybe it's time for a class action against the GM fans and bent
government officials bowing to the wallet of Monsanto!



Pearl
2008-03-23 07:01:59 EST
"Old Codger" <oldcodger@anyoldwherewilldo.com> wrote in message news:j3acu31e00o8nhtdaq03obqilgg3nkmnmn@4ax.com...
>
> Maybe it's time for a class action against the GM fans and bent
> government officials bowing to the wallet of Monsanto!

At the *very least*...

"This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying
consumers their right to make fully informed choices. ...."

'Public unaware that most milk, dairy products and pork from GM

Soil Association PRESS RELEASE 16/11/2007
..
Supermarkets have been trumpeting their non-GM food policies,
having removed all of their own-label foods made directly with GM
ingredients by October 2002 in response to consumer concerns.
However, unknown to most of the public supermarkets did not
prohibit the use of GM animal feed. Because of a legal loophole,
there is no requirement to label food produced from GM-fed animals
so shoppers will find it hard to avoid food produced from GM. [2]

Currently, the only food standard that guarantees the non-use of
GM feed is organic. The basic food industry mark, the 'Little Red
Tractor', allows the use of GM feed. Even ethical labels like
'Freedom foods' allow animals to be fed GM crops. For non-organic
food, Marks & Spencer offers the only refuge in offering all its milk
and fresh meat from non-GM feed, but it does allow GM feed for its
frozen and processed foods.
...
This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying consumers
their right to make fully informed choices. For years, the Food
Standards Agency has been assuring consumers they would not be
exposed to GM material by eating meat and dairy products from GM-
fed animals. Scientific studies have now found small amounts of GM
DNA in milk and animal tissues from GM-fed livestock. [4] And
studies on GM-fed livestock are finding horrendous effects, including
lesions on the gut, toxic effects in body organs, unexplained deaths
and stunted growth in their offspring. [5] This raises concerns about the
long-term health impacts on humans consuming products from GM-fed
animals.

Patrick Holden, Soil Association director said:
"This amounts to deception on a large-scale. This is not just accidental
contamination, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GM grain are being
used to produce our food each year. Biotechnology companies have
clearly used imported animal feed as a Trojan Horse to introduce GM
into the UK food chain, despite the fact that the British public have voted
overwhelmingly against GM.
...
Based on our findings, we estimate that around 400,000 tonnes (290,000t
of GM maize gluten and 146,000t of GM soya) are imported each year to
produce manufactured feed for the dairy, pig and poultry sectors (out of
a total of 467,000t of maize gluten and 1,123,000t of soya used in
manufactured feed for these sectors). Note, the total amount of imported
soya and maize gluten that contains GM is far higher. If imported grain
used for 'home-mixing' of feed by farmers and the small amounts used
for fattening beef and sheep (but not wholly grass-fed animals) are
included, the total GM feed used would be higher. (See Chapter 4)

[2] The Soil Association is calling on the Government and European
Commission to introduce a legal requirement for GM labelling for
foods produced from GM-fed animals. This is supported by the public:

An NOP survey in 2006 found that 87% of the UK public believe food
from GM-fed animals should be labelled (up from a finding of 79% by
the National Consumer Council in 2001).

A European-wide petition for such labelling collected a million signatures
by February 2007. (See Chapter 6) NOP poll of 1000 UK adults carried
out 9-11 June 2006 and weighted to be nationally representative.
"One million EU citizens call for labelling of GM foods", by Helena
Spongenberg, 5 February 2007, EU Observer.
..
[4] Until 2005, studies which tried to detect GM DNA in milk, eggs and
tissues from GM-fed animals had only detected non-GM DNA from the
crops, indicating that GM DNA was also probably present in low quantities
even if it had not been detected (Chowdhury et al, 2004; Phipps et al, 2003;
Einspanier et al, 2001). On this basis, although it was not strictly supported
by the science, the FSA and biotechnology industry claimed consumers
would not be exposed to GM material by eating food from GM-fed animals.
Now, however, four studies by different scientific teams have detected GM
DNA in milk and pig and sheep tissues from GM-fed animals (Sharma et al,
2006; Agodi et al, 2006, Mazza et al, 2005; reports by Ralf Einspanier,
20 October and 20 December 2000). (See Chapter 5.1)

[5] The report includes a review of GM feeding trials (12 animal and 1 human)
that found negative health effects (all controlled against non-GM crops). Our
report also describes some of the ways in which these findings were dismissed
by the FSA / European Food Safety Authority and the biotechnology
companies, and lists seven scientific reasons why genetic engineering changes
the biology of plants, posing risks to health (See Chapter 5.2):

Russian rat trial of GM soya: very high mortality and stunted growth in the
offspring (Ermakova, 2005)

Italian mice trial of GM soya: metabolic effects on body organs (Malatesta et al,
2002 and 2003; Vecchio et al, 2004)

FSA-commissioned human trial of GM soya by Newcastle University: GM DNA
transfers out of food into the body's gut bacteria (Netherwood et al, 2004)

Monsanto rat trial of GM maize: changes in body organs indicating toxic effects
(report by Monsanto, 2002; review by Dr Pusztai, 2004; S\ufffdralini et al, 2007)

Aventis chicken trial of GM maize: mortality doubled and significant change in
composition of meat (reports for the Chardon LL hearing, 2002; review in
"Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing, 2003)

Aventis rat trial of the novel protein of GM maize: reduced body weight and
metabolic effects (same references as for Aventis chicken trial)

UK study on sheep: in a few minutes, the genes in the GM maize move into
the bacteria in the mouth, changing their characteristics (Duggan et al, 2003)

Monsanto rat trials of GM oilseed rape: reduction in body weight and
increased liver weight (significant as the liver is the organ of detoxification)
(US FDA, 2002; Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified
Organisms, 2004)

Australian mice trial of GM peas: allergic reactions, including inflammation
of lungs (Prescott et al, 2005)

Calgene mice trials of GM tomatoes: gut lesions and 7 of 40 died within two
weeks (review in "Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing,
2003)

UK Government-commissioned rat trial of GM potatoes by Rowett Research
Institute: gut lesions (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999)

NB: These studies were all designed to identify health impacts; the animal
trials often referred to by the biotechnology companies are largely irrelevant
as proof of safety, being mostly studies carried out for commercial purposes
on the efficacy of the feed, rather than 'toxicological' studies involving tissue
analysis.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/71216c30d62d9891802573950032f47b!OpenDocument

< http://tinyurl.com/354jd3 >



Old Codger
2008-03-23 07:22:46 EST
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:01:59 -0000, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie>
wrote:

>"Old Codger" <oldcodger@anyoldwherewilldo.com> wrote in message news:j3acu31e00o8nhtdaq03obqilgg3nkmnmn@4ax.com...
>>
>> Maybe it's time for a class action against the GM fans and bent
>> government officials bowing to the wallet of Monsanto!
>
>At the *very least*...
>
>"This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying
> consumers their right to make fully informed choices. ...."
>
>'Public unaware that most milk, dairy products and pork from GM
>
>Soil Association PRESS RELEASE 16/11/2007
>..
> Supermarkets have been trumpeting their non-GM food policies,
>having removed all of their own-label foods made directly with GM
>ingredients by October 2002 in response to consumer concerns.
>However, unknown to most of the public supermarkets did not
>prohibit the use of GM animal feed. Because of a legal loophole,
>there is no requirement to label food produced from GM-fed animals
>so shoppers will find it hard to avoid food produced from GM. [2]
>
>Currently, the only food standard that guarantees the non-use of
>GM feed is organic.

Looks like organic is rapidly becoming a minimum standard we should be
looking at. No wonder the lazy farmers don't approve of organic, it
means they'll need to work for a living and not just at the shortcuts.

> The basic food industry mark, the 'Little Red
>Tractor', allows the use of GM feed. Even ethical labels like
>'Freedom foods' allow animals to be fed GM crops. For non-organic
>food, Marks & Spencer offers the only refuge in offering all its milk
>and fresh meat from non-GM feed, but it does allow GM feed for its
>frozen and processed foods.

Red tractor and freedom foods make a mockery of food standards and
animal welfare.

>This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying consumers
>their right to make fully informed choices. For years, the Food
>Standards Agency has been assuring consumers they would not be
>exposed to GM material by eating meat and dairy products from GM-
>fed animals. Scientific studies have now found small amounts of GM
>DNA in milk and animal tissues from GM-fed livestock. [4] And
>studies on GM-fed livestock are finding horrendous effects, including
>lesions on the gut, toxic effects in body organs, unexplained deaths
>and stunted growth in their offspring. [5] This raises concerns about the
>long-term health impacts on humans consuming products from GM-fed
>animals.
>
>Patrick Holden, Soil Association director said:
>"This amounts to deception on a large-scale. This is not just accidental
>contamination, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GM grain are being
>used to produce our food each year. Biotechnology companies have
>clearly used imported animal feed as a Trojan Horse to introduce GM
>into the UK food chain, despite the fact that the British public have voted
>overwhelmingly against GM.
>...
>Based on our findings, we estimate that around 400,000 tonnes (290,000t
>of GM maize gluten and 146,000t of GM soya) are imported each year to
>produce manufactured feed for the dairy, pig and poultry sectors (out of
>a total of 467,000t of maize gluten and 1,123,000t of soya used in
>manufactured feed for these sectors). Note, the total amount of imported
>soya and maize gluten that contains GM is far higher. If imported grain
>used for 'home-mixing' of feed by farmers and the small amounts used
>for fattening beef and sheep (but not wholly grass-fed animals) are
>included, the total GM feed used would be higher. (See Chapter 4)
>
>[2] The Soil Association is calling on the Government and European
>Commission to introduce a legal requirement for GM labelling for
>foods produced from GM-fed animals. This is supported by the public:
>
>An NOP survey in 2006 found that 87% of the UK public believe food
>from GM-fed animals should be labelled (up from a finding of 79% by
>the National Consumer Council in 2001).
>
>A European-wide petition for such labelling collected a million signatures
>by February 2007. (See Chapter 6) NOP poll of 1000 UK adults carried
>out 9-11 June 2006 and weighted to be nationally representative.
>"One million EU citizens call for labelling of GM foods", by Helena
>Spongenberg, 5 February 2007, EU Observer.
>..
>[4] Until 2005, studies which tried to detect GM DNA in milk, eggs and
>tissues from GM-fed animals had only detected non-GM DNA from the
>crops, indicating that GM DNA was also probably present in low quantities
>even if it had not been detected (Chowdhury et al, 2004; Phipps et al, 2003;
>Einspanier et al, 2001). On this basis, although it was not strictly supported
>by the science, the FSA and biotechnology industry claimed consumers
>would not be exposed to GM material by eating food from GM-fed animals.
>Now, however, four studies by different scientific teams have detected GM
>DNA in milk and pig and sheep tissues from GM-fed animals (Sharma et al,
>2006; Agodi et al, 2006, Mazza et al, 2005; reports by Ralf Einspanier,
>20 October and 20 December 2000). (See Chapter 5.1)
>
>[5] The report includes a review of GM feeding trials (12 animal and 1 human)
>that found negative health effects (all controlled against non-GM crops). Our
>report also describes some of the ways in which these findings were dismissed
>by the FSA / European Food Safety Authority and the biotechnology
>companies, and lists seven scientific reasons why genetic engineering changes
>the biology of plants, posing risks to health (See Chapter 5.2):
>
>Russian rat trial of GM soya: very high mortality and stunted growth in the
>offspring (Ermakova, 2005)
>
>Italian mice trial of GM soya: metabolic effects on body organs (Malatesta et al,
>2002 and 2003; Vecchio et al, 2004)
>
>FSA-commissioned human trial of GM soya by Newcastle University: GM DNA
>transfers out of food into the body's gut bacteria (Netherwood et al, 2004)
>
>Monsanto rat trial of GM maize: changes in body organs indicating toxic effects
>(report by Monsanto, 2002; review by Dr Pusztai, 2004; Séralini et al, 2007)
>
>Aventis chicken trial of GM maize: mortality doubled and significant change in
>composition of meat (reports for the Chardon LL hearing, 2002; review in
>"Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing, 2003)
>
>Aventis rat trial of the novel protein of GM maize: reduced body weight and
>metabolic effects (same references as for Aventis chicken trial)
>
>UK study on sheep: in a few minutes, the genes in the GM maize move into
>the bacteria in the mouth, changing their characteristics (Duggan et al, 2003)
>
>Monsanto rat trials of GM oilseed rape: reduction in body weight and
>increased liver weight (significant as the liver is the organ of detoxification)
>(US FDA, 2002; Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified
>Organisms, 2004)
>
>Australian mice trial of GM peas: allergic reactions, including inflammation
>of lungs (Prescott et al, 2005)
>
>Calgene mice trials of GM tomatoes: gut lesions and 7 of 40 died within two
>weeks (review in "Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing,
>2003)
>
>UK Government-commissioned rat trial of GM potatoes by Rowett Research
>Institute: gut lesions (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999)
>
>NB: These studies were all designed to identify health impacts; the animal
>trials often referred to by the biotechnology companies are largely irrelevant
>as proof of safety, being mostly studies carried out for commercial purposes
>on the efficacy of the feed, rather than 'toxicological' studies involving tissue
>analysis.
>...'
>http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/71216c30d62d9891802573950032f47b!OpenDocument
>
>< http://tinyurl.com/354jd3 >
>


Looks like it really is time for Labour to go. Sadly the alternatives
can only be far worse.

Pearl
2008-03-23 07:51:21 EST
"Old Codger" <oldcodger@anyoldwherewilldo.com> wrote in message news:c6fcu3d1hhldlvn2c7ju2g835st08cm4vf@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:01:59 -0000, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie>
> wrote:
>
> >"Old Codger" <oldcodger@anyoldwherewilldo.com> wrote in message news:j3acu31e00o8nhtdaq03obqilgg3nkmnmn@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Maybe it's time for a class action against the GM fans and bent
> >> government officials bowing to the wallet of Monsanto!
> >
> >At the *very least*...
> >
> >"This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying
> > consumers their right to make fully informed choices. ...."
> >
> >'Public unaware that most milk, dairy products and pork from GM
> >
> >Soil Association PRESS RELEASE 16/11/2007
> >..
> > Supermarkets have been trumpeting their non-GM food policies,
> >having removed all of their own-label foods made directly with GM
> >ingredients by October 2002 in response to consumer concerns.
> >However, unknown to most of the public supermarkets did not
> >prohibit the use of GM animal feed. Because of a legal loophole,
> >there is no requirement to label food produced from GM-fed animals
> >so shoppers will find it hard to avoid food produced from GM. [2]
> >
> >Currently, the only food standard that guarantees the non-use of
> >GM feed is organic.
>
> Looks like organic is rapidly becoming a minimum standard we should be
> looking at. No wonder the lazy farmers don't approve of organic, it
> means they'll need to work for a living and not just at the shortcuts.

Speaking of whom.... where's jim-in-a box? Faulty mechanism?

> > The basic food industry mark, the 'Little Red
> >Tractor', allows the use of GM feed. Even ethical labels like
> >'Freedom foods' allow animals to be fed GM crops. For non-organic
> >food, Marks & Spencer offers the only refuge in offering all its milk
> >and fresh meat from non-GM feed, but it does allow GM feed for its
> >frozen and processed foods.
>
> Red tractor and freedom foods make a mockery of food standards and
> animal welfare.

All we can expect from wilfully ignorant 'meat-on-a-stick' mentality.

> >This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying consumers
> >their right to make fully informed choices. For years, the Food
> >Standards Agency has been assuring consumers they would not be
> >exposed to GM material by eating meat and dairy products from GM-
> >fed animals. Scientific studies have now found small amounts of GM
> >DNA in milk and animal tissues from GM-fed livestock. [4] And
> >studies on GM-fed livestock are finding horrendous effects, including
> >lesions on the gut, toxic effects in body organs, unexplained deaths
> >and stunted growth in their offspring. [5] This raises concerns about the
> >long-term health impacts on humans consuming products from GM-fed
> >animals.
> >
> >Patrick Holden, Soil Association director said:
> >"This amounts to deception on a large-scale. This is not just accidental
> >contamination, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GM grain are being
> >used to produce our food each year. Biotechnology companies have
> >clearly used imported animal feed as a Trojan Horse to introduce GM
> >into the UK food chain, despite the fact that the British public have voted
> >overwhelmingly against GM.
> >...
> >Based on our findings, we estimate that around 400,000 tonnes (290,000t
> >of GM maize gluten and 146,000t of GM soya) are imported each year to
> >produce manufactured feed for the dairy, pig and poultry sectors (out of
> >a total of 467,000t of maize gluten and 1,123,000t of soya used in
> >manufactured feed for these sectors). Note, the total amount of imported
> >soya and maize gluten that contains GM is far higher. If imported grain
> >used for 'home-mixing' of feed by farmers and the small amounts used
> >for fattening beef and sheep (but not wholly grass-fed animals) are
> >included, the total GM feed used would be higher. (See Chapter 4)
> >
> >[2] The Soil Association is calling on the Government and European
> >Commission to introduce a legal requirement for GM labelling for
> >foods produced from GM-fed animals. This is supported by the public:
> >
> >An NOP survey in 2006 found that 87% of the UK public believe food
> >from GM-fed animals should be labelled (up from a finding of 79% by
> >the National Consumer Council in 2001).
> >A European-wide petition for such labelling collected a million signatures
> >by February 2007. (See Chapter 6)
NOP poll of 1000 UK adults carried out 9-11 June 2006 and weighted to
be nationally representative.
> >"One million EU citizens call for labelling of GM foods", by Helena
> >Spongenberg, 5 February 2007, EU Observer.
> >..
> >[4] Until 2005, studies which tried to detect GM DNA in milk, eggs and
> >tissues from GM-fed animals had only detected non-GM DNA from the
> >crops, indicating that GM DNA was also probably present in low quantities
> >even if it had not been detected (Chowdhury et al, 2004; Phipps et al, 2003;
> >Einspanier et al, 2001). On this basis, although it was not strictly supported
> >by the science, the FSA and biotechnology industry claimed consumers
> >would not be exposed to GM material by eating food from GM-fed animals.
> >Now, however, four studies by different scientific teams have detected GM
> >DNA in milk and pig and sheep tissues from GM-fed animals (Sharma et al,
> >2006; Agodi et al, 2006, Mazza et al, 2005; reports by Ralf Einspanier,
> >20 October and 20 December 2000). (See Chapter 5.1)
> >
> >[5] The report includes a review of GM feeding trials (12 animal and 1 human)
> >that found negative health effects (all controlled against non-GM crops). Our
> >report also describes some of the ways in which these findings were dismissed
> >by the FSA / European Food Safety Authority and the biotechnology
> >companies, and lists seven scientific reasons why genetic engineering changes
> >the biology of plants, posing risks to health (See Chapter 5.2):
> >
> >Russian rat trial of GM soya: very high mortality and stunted growth in the
> >offspring (Ermakova, 2005)
> >
> >Italian mice trial of GM soya: metabolic effects on body organs (Malatesta et al,
> >2002 and 2003; Vecchio et al, 2004)
> >
> >FSA-commissioned human trial of GM soya by Newcastle University: GM DNA
> >transfers out of food into the body's gut bacteria (Netherwood et al, 2004)
> >
> >Monsanto rat trial of GM maize: changes in body organs indicating toxic effects
> >(report by Monsanto, 2002; review by Dr Pusztai, 2004; S\ufffdralini et al, 2007)
> >
> >Aventis chicken trial of GM maize: mortality doubled and significant change in
> >composition of meat (reports for the Chardon LL hearing, 2002; review in
> >"Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing, 2003)
> >
> >Aventis rat trial of the novel protein of GM maize: reduced body weight and
> >metabolic effects (same references as for Aventis chicken trial)
> >
> >UK study on sheep: in a few minutes, the genes in the GM maize move into
> >the bacteria in the mouth, changing their characteristics (Duggan et al, 2003)
> >
> >Monsanto rat trials of GM oilseed rape: reduction in body weight and
> >increased liver weight (significant as the liver is the organ of detoxification)
> >(US FDA, 2002; Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified
> >Organisms, 2004)
> >
> >Australian mice trial of GM peas: allergic reactions, including inflammation
> >of lungs (Prescott et al, 2005)
> >
> >Calgene mice trials of GM tomatoes: gut lesions and 7 of 40 died within two
> >weeks (review in "Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing,
> >2003)
> >
> >UK Government-commissioned rat trial of GM potatoes by Rowett Research
> >Institute: gut lesions (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999)
> >
> >NB: These studies were all designed to identify health impacts; the animal
> >trials often referred to by the biotechnology companies are largely irrelevant
> >as proof of safety, being mostly studies carried out for commercial purposes
> >on the efficacy of the feed, rather than 'toxicological' studies involving tissue
> >analysis.
> >...'
> >http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/71216c30d62d9891802573950032f47b!OpenDocument
> >
> >< http://tinyurl.com/354jd3 >
> >
>
>
> Looks like it really is time for Labour to go. Sadly the alternatives
> can only be far worse.

In spite of everything, I'm actually still optimistic about the future.



Pearl
2008-03-23 08:14:10 EST
"Old Codger" <oldcodger@anyoldwherewilldo.com> wrote in message news:c6fcu3d1hhldlvn2c7ju2g835st08cm4vf@4ax.com...

> Looks like organic is rapidly becoming a minimum standard we should be
> looking at. No wonder the lazy farmers don't approve of organic, it
> means they'll need to work for a living and not just at the shortcuts.

'UK organic sales nudge \ufffd2bn - up 22 per cent - averaging \ufffd7 million
growth per week.
Sales through local, direct marketing schemes such as veg boxes soar
by 53 per cent.

Soil Association PRESS RELEASE 03/09/2007
..
Sales of free-range and organic outstripping eggs from caged birds
for the first time. Consumer concerns over animal welfare appear to
be driving changes in the poultry sector.
..
Households with children under the age of 15 tend to buy a wider
range of organic foods than those with no children.

Organic farmers are three times as likely to market their products
locally or directly as non-organic farmers in the UK.
..
Helen Browning, Soil Association Director of Food and Farming said:
"These figures are extremely encouraging, the year on year growth in
sales not just in food and drink, but also the newer booming clothing
and health and beauty sectors confirm organic has moved well beyond
a mere fad or niche.

"The staggering 53 per cent growth in sales through box schemes and
other direct routes confirms strong public support for local, seasonal
and organic food that provides a fair return to farmers and growers,
boosts the local economy, and also reduces your carbon footprint -
consumers are increasingly linking everyday food choice to
environmental action.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/efd75fcb51d9029c8025734800579da9!OpenDocument

< http://tinyurl.com/2r9asb >



Pearl
2008-03-23 08:27:26 EST
"Old Codger" <oldcodger@anyoldwherewilldo.com> wrote in message news:1p7cu3d3jl5h7qdgkt7k26182gp944qm8a@4ax.com...
> Wales set to ban GM crops
> Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail
>
> PROPOSALS by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban
> genetically modified crops from Wales.
>
> New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in
> applying a strict "polluter pays" principle that will put an end even
> to trial plantings.
>
> GM companies have consistently resisted efforts to make them accept
> responsibility for "leaks" of GM material and Defra's proposals for
> England stop short of pinning liability on the operator or permit
> holder in the event of environmental or economic damage.

'Brits say 'No' to GM as the Soil Association asks Government:
'keep your promise'

Soil Association PRESS RELEASE 09/11/2007

The Soil Association welcomes the fact that the overwhelming majority
of the 11,700 responses to Defra's proposals to control the contamination
of GM crops, have opposed them according to a summary of the results
of the consultation published by Defra yesterday.

Defra had planned to allow surrounding non-GM crops to be contaminated
up to 0.9%, and for the locations of GM crops to be kept secret from the
public, which would prevent the production of GM-free food by both
organic and non-organic farmers in the UK.[1]

Back in 1998 Jeff Rooker MP, as Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food, made the following statement on GM: "I want to make it
absolutely clear that my Ministry.will be working.to ensure that the
expansion of organic farming is not compromised by the introduction of
genetically modified crops... that is the most important sentence that I shall
say this evening. I genuinely mean that - those are not words to be put in
Hansard and forgotten about; I shall follow through." [2]

The Soil Association believes that, so far, Defra is working in the opposite
direction to what the Government has promised, and what the public are
demanding.

Defra's summary showed that more than 95% of the public responses were
opposed to Defra's proposals. In particular, the responses supported the
Soil Association's position that contamination of organic crops should be
kept below the 0.1% limit of detection, through measures undertaken by
GM farmers, and the GM sector should be fully economically liable for
any costs or loss of market if contamination occurs. [3]

Soil Association policy manager Gundula Azeez said:
"It would be totally unacceptable situation if GM-free food can no longer
be grown in the UK. This is an extremely important issue for organic
farmers and businesses, because their customers do not wish to have
organic food contaminated by GM material. [4] Strict measures to control
contamination are absolutely essential to avoid negative impacts on the
organic sector, as many examples from around the world show. [5] Defra
must totally revise their proposals."

The Soil Association also welcomes the fact that the Goverment will wait
until European limits for maximum GM contamination levels in certified
seed have been set. As the start of the food chain it's essential
contamination levels of seed are set at 0%.
....'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/89d058cc4dbeb16d80256a73005a2866/a4cf879f83e55e9b8025738e004ed849!OpenDocument

< http://tinyurl.com/38rkot >



Old Codger
2008-03-23 08:34:35 EST
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:14:10 -0000, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie>
wrote:

>"Old Codger" <oldcodger@anyoldwherewilldo.com> wrote in message news:c6fcu3d1hhldlvn2c7ju2g835st08cm4vf@4ax.com...
>
>> Looks like organic is rapidly becoming a minimum standard we should be
>> looking at. No wonder the lazy farmers don't approve of organic, it
>> means they'll need to work for a living and not just at the shortcuts.
>
>'UK organic sales nudge £2bn - up 22 per cent - averaging £7 million
>growth per week.
>Sales through local, direct marketing schemes such as veg boxes soar
>by 53 per cent.
>
>Soil Association PRESS RELEASE 03/09/2007
>..
>Sales of free-range and organic outstripping eggs from caged birds
>for the first time. Consumer concerns over animal welfare appear to
>be driving changes in the poultry sector.
>..
>Households with children under the age of 15 tend to buy a wider
>range of organic foods than those with no children.
>
>Organic farmers are three times as likely to market their products
>locally or directly as non-organic farmers in the UK.
>..
>Helen Browning, Soil Association Director of Food and Farming said:
>"These figures are extremely encouraging, the year on year growth in
>sales not just in food and drink, but also the newer booming clothing
>and health and beauty sectors confirm organic has moved well beyond
>a mere fad or niche.
>
>"The staggering 53 per cent growth in sales through box schemes and
>other direct routes confirms strong public support for local, seasonal
>and organic food that provides a fair return to farmers and growers,
>boosts the local economy, and also reduces your carbon footprint -
>consumers are increasingly linking everyday food choice to
>environmental action.
>...'
>http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/efd75fcb51d9029c8025734800579da9!OpenDocument
>
>< http://tinyurl.com/2r9asb >
>

Looks like old Jumbo will need to eat his hat!

Jim Webster
2008-03-23 08:37:10 EST

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:fs590n$7pf$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
> /Really/.
>

the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting

Jim Webster


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron