<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for As GMO sugar beets sneak into the food supply, citizens fight back]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Skeptico http://www.grist.org/article/not-a-sweet-proposition/ Sat, 09 Aug 2008 03:59:01 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/not-a-sweet-proposition/1 Wrong problem?

When the USDA first approved GE sugar beets for commercial planting in 1998, the EPA also increased the maximum allowable residues of glyphosate on sugar beet roots from just .02 parts per million to 10ppm.

It sounds like the problem is not GE per se, but the change in regulation allowing the increases in herbicide residue.

]]> Wrong problem?

When the USDA first approved GE sugar beets for commercial planting in 1998, the EPA also increased the maximum allowable residues of glyphosate on sugar beet roots from just .02 parts per million to 10ppm.

It sounds like the problem is not GE per se, but the change in regulation allowing the increases in herbicide residue.

]]> Comment #2 by colliwa http://www.grist.org/article/not-a-sweet-proposition/ Mon, 11 Aug 2008 05:58:18 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/not-a-sweet-proposition/2 say no to GMO

thanks Lisa for reminding us that public pressure is key to drawing a GE line in the sand over sugar beets.

It is crucial that we let these companies know that the introduction of sugar derived from genetically modified beets will be meet with strong consumer protest.

I happen to work for one of the companys poised to introduce this material into its' widely consumed candy and snack foods.  Like Hershey's, this corporation formerly had a no-use policy when it came to GE beets, but have sinced changed their stance to allow its' introduction into the marketplace.

and while i'm doing what i can to convince my colleagues of the importance and urgency of reinstating our former rejection of GE derived sugar, it's the voices of consumers, which will, I believe, have more of an impact on altering our companys' position.

if you haven't done so already, check out the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility's "don't plant GMO beets" website @ http://www.dontplantgmobeets.org.  there you can contact these companies and demand they take immediate steps to prevent this materials' introduction into their products.

Also keep in mind that the biotech companies have more GMO seed lines waiting in the wings. If GE beets are allowed to proceed into our food supply, more and more crop families will be in danger of irreversible GMO contamination --  The risks to human health, and to the environment, in my opinion, would be devastating.

]]> say no to GMO

thanks Lisa for reminding us that public pressure is key to drawing a GE line in the sand over sugar beets.

It is crucial that we let these companies know that the introduction of sugar derived from genetically modified beets will be meet with strong consumer protest.

I happen to work for one of the companys poised to introduce this material into its' widely consumed candy and snack foods.  Like Hershey's, this corporation formerly had a no-use policy when it came to GE beets, but have sinced changed their stance to allow its' introduction into the marketplace.

and while i'm doing what i can to convince my colleagues of the importance and urgency of reinstating our former rejection of GE derived sugar, it's the voices of consumers, which will, I believe, have more of an impact on altering our companys' position.

if you haven't done so already, check out the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility's "don't plant GMO beets" website @ http://www.dontplantgmobeets.org.  there you can contact these companies and demand they take immediate steps to prevent this materials' introduction into their products.

Also keep in mind that the biotech companies have more GMO seed lines waiting in the wings. If GE beets are allowed to proceed into our food supply, more and more crop families will be in danger of irreversible GMO contamination --  The risks to human health, and to the environment, in my opinion, would be devastating.

]]> Comment #3 by Lisa J. Bunin http://www.grist.org/article/not-a-sweet-proposition/ Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:56:21 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/not-a-sweet-proposition/3 On the Contrary

To grow Roundup Ready, herbicide resistant, GE sugar beets, the maximum allowable glyphosate residues on beet roots had to be increased because farmers spray the weedkiller directly on the plant, which can't be done with conventional varieties.

However, this massive 5,000% increase in allowable herbicide residues (from 0.2ppm to 10ppm) is just one of the many causes for concern about the commercial planting of GE sugar beets.  Here are some others:

The USDA approved GE sugar beets, as it did the other 4 major GE crops on the market today, without conducting a full review of the potential environmental impacts, as required by law.  Consequently, the Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club, and High Mowing Seeds is suing the USDA and asking the Court to withdraw USDA's approval of the commercial planting of GE sugar beets until the USDA prepares an environmental impact statement (EIS) http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Final%20Complaint ...

Market approval of GE crops is based upon the biotech industry's own research.  No long-term health studies on the effects of eating GE foods have been conducted by any government agency.

GE crops are not tested for the presence of potential toxins, mutagens, carcinogens, immune system suppressants or new allergens that could be created during the production of GE crops.

Once released into the environment, GE pollen and seeds can't be recalled - the genie cannot be stuffed back into the bottle.  And, because GE sugar beets are wind pollinated, they have the potential to travel long distances and contaminate non-GM seeds and crops of related varieties, such as chard and table beets.  This puts markets at risk for both organic crops and conventionally grown, non-GE export crops.

Just as the overuse of antibiotics breeds anti-biotic resistant bacteria, the overuse of glyphosate weedkiller, used in tandem with the growing of GE sugar beets, breeds glyphosate-resistant superweeds.  These superweeds are stronger than normal weeds and, therefore, require the use of even more toxic and persistent chemicals to kill them, which will inevitably end up in our food and waterways.  

So, you see, the problem isn't merely the change in regulation.  It is also a lack of adequate regulation and the absence of evidence that proves GE sugar beets, or any other GE crop for that matter, is safe for human consumption and the environment.

Lisa J. Bunin Campaigns Coordinator Center for Food Safety and Switzer Environmental Leadership Fellow

]]> On the Contrary

To grow Roundup Ready, herbicide resistant, GE sugar beets, the maximum allowable glyphosate residues on beet roots had to be increased because farmers spray the weedkiller directly on the plant, which can't be done with conventional varieties.

However, this massive 5,000% increase in allowable herbicide residues (from 0.2ppm to 10ppm) is just one of the many causes for concern about the commercial planting of GE sugar beets.  Here are some others:

The USDA approved GE sugar beets, as it did the other 4 major GE crops on the market today, without conducting a full review of the potential environmental impacts, as required by law.  Consequently, the Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club, and High Mowing Seeds is suing the USDA and asking the Court to withdraw USDA's approval of the commercial planting of GE sugar beets until the USDA prepares an environmental impact statement (EIS) http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Final%20Complaint ...

Market approval of GE crops is based upon the biotech industry's own research.  No long-term health studies on the effects of eating GE foods have been conducted by any government agency.

GE crops are not tested for the presence of potential toxins, mutagens, carcinogens, immune system suppressants or new allergens that could be created during the production of GE crops.

Once released into the environment, GE pollen and seeds can't be recalled - the genie cannot be stuffed back into the bottle.  And, because GE sugar beets are wind pollinated, they have the potential to travel long distances and contaminate non-GM seeds and crops of related varieties, such as chard and table beets.  This puts markets at risk for both organic crops and conventionally grown, non-GE export crops.

Just as the overuse of antibiotics breeds anti-biotic resistant bacteria, the overuse of glyphosate weedkiller, used in tandem with the growing of GE sugar beets, breeds glyphosate-resistant superweeds.  These superweeds are stronger than normal weeds and, therefore, require the use of even more toxic and persistent chemicals to kill them, which will inevitably end up in our food and waterways.  

So, you see, the problem isn't merely the change in regulation.  It is also a lack of adequate regulation and the absence of evidence that proves GE sugar beets, or any other GE crop for that matter, is safe for human consumption and the environment.

Lisa J. Bunin Campaigns Coordinator Center for Food Safety and Switzer Environmental Leadership Fellow

]]> Comment #4 by Catdaddio42 http://www.grist.org/article/not-a-sweet-proposition/ Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:04:44 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/not-a-sweet-proposition/4 Stop the hyperbole if you can

Think beyond your zealotry. Sugar is sugar. It is cryatallized out of hot water and has no trace of DNA or protein in it so it's not "genetically modified" material regardless of the plant source. It's essentially the same strategy as isolation of oil from corn, soybean, canola and cotton. No protein, no DNA, no "biotech." The sugar is the same. As for your science sources regarding the evils of an herbicide (a chemical that affects plant enzymes, not mammalian), you won't get the truth from front groups for the organic industry. If you've been paying any attention to the recent food-borne causes of DEATHS and ILLNESS (my feeble attempt at hyperbole) they are all linked to manure - the E. coli and Salmonella based "troubles" you may have heard about. You should be worried about contributing to habitat destruction and your carbon footprint. Drop organic for high-intensity agriculture.

]]> Stop the hyperbole if you can

Think beyond your zealotry. Sugar is sugar. It is cryatallized out of hot water and has no trace of DNA or protein in it so it's not "genetically modified" material regardless of the plant source. It's essentially the same strategy as isolation of oil from corn, soybean, canola and cotton. No protein, no DNA, no "biotech." The sugar is the same. As for your science sources regarding the evils of an herbicide (a chemical that affects plant enzymes, not mammalian), you won't get the truth from front groups for the organic industry. If you've been paying any attention to the recent food-borne causes of DEATHS and ILLNESS (my feeble attempt at hyperbole) they are all linked to manure - the E. coli and Salmonella based "troubles" you may have heard about. You should be worried about contributing to habitat destruction and your carbon footprint. Drop organic for high-intensity agriculture.

]]> Comment #5 by Lisa J. Bunin http://www.grist.org/article/not-a-sweet-proposition/ Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:00:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/not-a-sweet-proposition/5 Let's get to the point

You seem to have missed it, so let's try again...

World agriculture is increasingly becoming dependent upon a single tool for weed control -- the weedkiller glyphosate, Monsanto's Roundup in particular.  This situation is largely attributable to the rapid spread of GM, Roundup Ready (RR) crops, which is also driving the expansion of glyphosate-resistant weeds.  Since Roundup is becoming less and less effective in killing weeds, farmers are turning to the use of more toxic and persistent herbicides, such as atrazine and 2,4-D, to eliminate those same weeds that formerly succumbed to Roundup.  

Contrary to your claims that Roundup adversely affects only plants, studies have shown that the weedkiller is toxic to amphibians, frogs, and earthworms.  Studies suggest that Roundup is a potential hormone disruptor and it may be correlated with increased rates of birth defects and cell division dysfunction.  At least one study has shown that children of glyphosate applicators experience higher rates of behavioral disorders than non-exposed populations.

So, there's ample cause for concern not only that more Roundup is being sprayed on sugar beets, but also that more residues - a 5,000% increase since 1998 - are being allowed on sugar beet roots!
Now straying, as you do, from the subject at hand...
Let's start with manure.  Your vote for high-intensity livestock production is a vote for huge manure lagoons created in animal factories housing thousands of cattle, pigs, and poultry crowded into confined animal feeding operations or CAFOs.  These manure lagoons sicken rural people with their stench and often leak into surface waters or breech their containers, contaminating local streams with a flood of fecal matter, causing massive fish kills.  

At CAFOs, cattle are force-fed corn that they were never meant to eat, creating unnaturally acidic conditions in their guts that foster development of deadly E. coli 0157:H7.  The source of pathogenic E. coli is animal factories, not organic agriculture.  Organic farmers use cover crops that fix nitrogen and spread safely COMPOSTED manure in their fields.  

Once organic farming systems are established, their yields are close or equal to that of the destructive "high-intensity" agriculture systems that you recommend.  Organic farmers produce high yields without using massive doses of nitrogen fertilizer that have numerous adverse side effects including huge emissions of nitrous oxides (potent global warming gases) and the creation of ever-expanding dead zones such as the one found in the Gulf of Mexico.  Dead zones are caused by hypoxia, a lack of oxygen due to nitrogen fertilizer-induced overgrowth of marine plants that suck all the oxygen (life) out of the water and then die.

Like you, I am also worried about habitat destruction, but I guess you haven't heard that practices such as ripping out riparian habitats and farmland vegetation are currently being touted as the solution to combat E. coli 0157:H7.  This is a big mistake and so is misleading people to think that high-intensity agriculture will solve our food safety problems when, actually, it's the root cause.

Lisa J. Bunin Campaigns Coordinator Center for Food Safety and Switzer Environmental Leadership Fellow




]]> Let's get to the point

You seem to have missed it, so let's try again...

World agriculture is increasingly becoming dependent upon a single tool for weed control -- the weedkiller glyphosate, Monsanto's Roundup in particular.  This situation is largely attributable to the rapid spread of GM, Roundup Ready (RR) crops, which is also driving the expansion of glyphosate-resistant weeds.  Since Roundup is becoming less and less effective in killing weeds, farmers are turning to the use of more toxic and persistent herbicides, such as atrazine and 2,4-D, to eliminate those same weeds that formerly succumbed to Roundup.  

Contrary to your claims that Roundup adversely affects only plants, studies have shown that the weedkiller is toxic to amphibians, frogs, and earthworms.  Studies suggest that Roundup is a potential hormone disruptor and it may be correlated with increased rates of birth defects and cell division dysfunction.  At least one study has shown that children of glyphosate applicators experience higher rates of behavioral disorders than non-exposed populations.

So, there's ample cause for concern not only that more Roundup is being sprayed on sugar beets, but also that more residues - a 5,000% increase since 1998 - are being allowed on sugar beet roots!
Now straying, as you do, from the subject at hand...
Let's start with manure.  Your vote for high-intensity livestock production is a vote for huge manure lagoons created in animal factories housing thousands of cattle, pigs, and poultry crowded into confined animal feeding operations or CAFOs.  These manure lagoons sicken rural people with their stench and often leak into surface waters or breech their containers, contaminating local streams with a flood of fecal matter, causing massive fish kills.  

At CAFOs, cattle are force-fed corn that they were never meant to eat, creating unnaturally acidic conditions in their guts that foster development of deadly E. coli 0157:H7.  The source of pathogenic E. coli is animal factories, not organic agriculture.  Organic farmers use cover crops that fix nitrogen and spread safely COMPOSTED manure in their fields.  

Once organic farming systems are established, their yields are close or equal to that of the destructive "high-intensity" agriculture systems that you recommend.  Organic farmers produce high yields without using massive doses of nitrogen fertilizer that have numerous adverse side effects including huge emissions of nitrous oxides (potent global warming gases) and the creation of ever-expanding dead zones such as the one found in the Gulf of Mexico.  Dead zones are caused by hypoxia, a lack of oxygen due to nitrogen fertilizer-induced overgrowth of marine plants that suck all the oxygen (life) out of the water and then die.

Like you, I am also worried about habitat destruction, but I guess you haven't heard that practices such as ripping out riparian habitats and farmland vegetation are currently being touted as the solution to combat E. coli 0157:H7.  This is a big mistake and so is misleading people to think that high-intensity agriculture will solve our food safety problems when, actually, it's the root cause.

Lisa J. Bunin Campaigns Coordinator Center for Food Safety and Switzer Environmental Leadership Fellow




]]>