GMO Part 3. - The Higher Purpose of Genetic Engineering

.

What is the purpose of genetic engineering?

 

The following crop species were genetically engineered between 1995 and 2010, soybean, cotton, maize, canola, sugar beet and alfalfa.

 

The implied purpose of biotech and genetic engineering is to attack flaws in the genetic traits of the seeds.  Traits include herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, drought tolerance and disease resistance.

 

According to Biotech industry advocates biotechnology is supposed to provide farmers with tools that can make production cheaper and more manageable. For example, some biotechnology crops can be engineered to tolerate specific herbicides, which makes weed control simpler and more efficient. Other crops have been engineered to be resistant to specific plant diseases and insect pests, which can make pest control more reliable and effective, and/or can decrease the use of synthetic pesticides. These crop production options can help countries keep pace with demands for food while reducing production costs. A number of biotechnology-derived crops that have been deregulated by the USDA and reviewed for food safety by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and/or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been adopted by growers.

 

Many other types of crops are now in the research and development stages. While it is not possible to know exactly which will come to fruition, certainly biotechnology will have highly varied uses for agriculture in the future. Advances in biotechnology may provide consumers with foods that are nutritionally-enriched or longer-lasting, or that contain lower levels of certain naturally occurring toxicants present in some food plants. Developers are using biotechnology to try to reduce saturated fats in cooking oils, reduce allergens in foods, and increase disease-fighting nutrients in foods. They are also researching ways to use genetically engineered crops in the production of new medicines, which may lead to a new plant-made pharmaceutical industry that could reduce the costs of production using a sustainable resource.

 

 

Genetically engineered plants are also being developed for a purpose known as phytoremediation in which the plants detoxify pollutants in the soil or absorb and accumulate polluting substances out of the soil so that the plants may be harvested and disposed of safely. In either case the result is improved soil quality at a polluted site. Biotechnology may also be used to conserve natural resources, enable animals to more effectively use nutrients present in feed, decrease nutrient runoff into rivers and bays, and help meet the increasing world food and land demands. Researchers are at work to produce hardier crops that will flourish in even the harshest environments and that will require less fuel, labor, fertilizer, and water, helping to decrease the pressures on land and wildlife habitats.

 

In addition to genetically engineered crops, biotechnology has helped make other improvements in agriculture not involving plants. Examples of such advances include making antibiotic production more efficient through microbial fermentation and producing new animal vaccines through genetic engineering for diseases such as foot and mouth disease and rabies.

 

These hopes sound good but what are the consequences of this rapidly evolving industry when it comes to the hopes and claims?

 

 

Fast Facts About Agriculture

 

2.2 million farms dot America’s rural landscape. About 97 percent of U.S. farms are operated by families – individuals, family partnerships or family corporations.

 

Farm and ranch families comprise just 2 percent of the U.S. population.

Farmers account for about 1% of the population, and the average age of farmers is rapidly increasing.

Large-scale family farms account for 9% of all farms and 66% of agricultural production.

A mere 19¢ of every dollar spent on food in 2006 went back to the farm – in 1975 it was 40¢.

Four out of every five farm households earned the majority of their income from off-farm sources.

 

 

From 2002 to 2007, total cropland acres decreased from 434 million acres to 406 million acres.

Many parts of the U.S., including agricultural regions, are experiencing groundwater depletion (withdrawal exceeds recharge rate).

Nutrient runoff in the agricultural upper regions of the Mississippi River creates a hypoxic “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. The average size of the region was over 6,600 sq. mi from 2004 to 2008.

Despite a tenfold increase in insecticide use between 1945 and 1989, crop losses due to insect damage nearly doubled.  In 2007 the agriculture sector used 877 million pounds of pesticides in the U.S.

Less than 20% of corn, soy, and cotton plants were genetically engineered in 1996; by 2011 88% of corn and 94% of soybeans were genetically modified.

In 2007, 1.73 billion tons of topsoil was lost to erosion, equal to about 200,000 tons each hour.

 

Agricultural activities were responsible for 6% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. Livestock are major contributors.

More than 21 million American workers (15 percent of the total U.S. workforce) produce, process and sell the nation’s food and fiber.

 

Today’s farmers produce 262 percent more food with 2 percent fewer inputs (labor, seeds, feed, fertilizer, etc.), compared with 1950.

 

In 2010, $115 billion worth of American agricultural products were exported around the world. The United States sells more food and fiber to world markets than we import, creating a positive agricultural trade balance.

 

 

One in three U.S. farm acres is planted for export.

 

31 percent of U.S. gross farm income comes directly from exports.

 

About 23 percent of raw U.S. farm products are exported each year.

 

Farmers and ranchers receive only 16 cents out of every dollar spent on food at home and away from home. The rest goes for costs beyond the farm gate: wages and materials for production, processing, marketing, transportation and distribution. In 1980, farmers and ranchers received 31 cents.

 

U.S. farm programs typically cost each American just pennies per meal and account for less than one-half of 1 percent of the total U.S. budget.

 

Americans enjoy a food supply that abundant, affordable overall and among the world’s safest, thanks in large part to the efficiency and productivity of America’s farm and ranch families.

 

 

 

Agriculture and the Environment

Careful stewardship by farmers has spurred a nearly 50 percent decline in erosion of cropland by wind and water since 1982.

Conservation tillage, a way of farming that reduces erosion (soil loss) on cropland while using less energy, has grown from 17 percent of acreage in 1982 to 63 percent today. At the same time, total land used for crops declined by 15 percent (70 million acres).

Farmers have enrolled a total of 31 million acres in the Conservation Reserve Program to protect the environment and provide habitat for wildlife. Since its inception in 1985, the program has helped reduce soil erosion by 622 million tons and restored more than 2 million acres of wetlands.

Farmers, ranchers and other landowners have installed more than 2 million miles of conservation buffers under farm bill initiatives. Buffers improve soil, air and water quality; enhance wildlife habitat; and create scenic landscapes.

Each year, hundreds of thousands of trees are planted on farmland.

More than half of America’s farmers intentionally provide habitat for wildlife. Deer, moose, fowl and other species have shown significant population increases for decades.

Through the farm bill, funding is provided to farmers and ranchers for conservation, for programs that prevent soil erosion, preserve and restore wetlands, clean the air and water, and enhance wildlife.

Crop rotation, the practice of growing different crops in succession on the same land, is another way farmers take care of the land.

For contour farming, farmers plant crops across the slope of the land to conserve water and protect soil.

Alternative energy sources, including wind power and renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel (made from corn, soybeans and other crops) are beneficial to the environment and promote energy security.

 

 

GMOs, A Global Debate: US Leads in GMO Production

By Christian Watjen, Epoch Times | July 14, 2013

 

SAN FRANCISCO—The United States is the world’s top producer of genetically modified organisms (GMO), followed by Brazil.  

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, a non-profit that promotes crop biotechnology, reports that the United States has about 70 million hectares (170 million acres) of land planted with GMO crops; Brazil has about 40 million hectares (90 million acres). 

Since the first GMO was approved in the United States in 1994, GM crops have played an increasingly larger role in U.S. agriculture. Today, about 90 percent of all corn and soybeans planted in the United States are grown from GM seeds, and more than 40 percent of all GM crops produced worldwide are grown in the United States, according to estimates by the University of California–Davis. 

About 70 percent of all processed foods sold in U.S. grocery stores contains GM ingredients, according to Colorado State University. Yet unlike most other developed nations, American regulators do not require special labeling of GM products. The first ballot initiative that would have made labeling mandatory failed last November in California.

 

 

Is GMO Food Necessary?

For Colin Carter, professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of California–Davis, it is clear that America needs GMOs.

Almost two decades have shown the advantages of genetically engineered crops for farmers and growers, he said.

“I think the strongest arguments [for GMOs] are reduced pesticide use, reduced yield loss, and increased competitiveness of U.S. agriculture,” Carter wrote in an email. 

He does not see a significant safety issue since, he said, no study has definitively shown a health risk for humans.

While Dr. Robert Gould, adjunct professor at the University of California–San Francisco, is a proponent for labeling, he cannot say whether GMOs are necessary or not. For Gould, it comes down to making wise choices in the face of uncertainty. 

“A lot of animal studies are inconclusive on both sides in terms of demonstrating clear-cut harm,” Gould said.

Gould is also a former national president of the Physicians for Social Responsibility, a global physician organization that has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its work on nuclear threats. 

He sees a parallel between GMOs and the introduction of nuclear technology—the risks of nuclear technology mostly became known only after it had already been used and its impacts already felt. 

“I have concerns when there is widespread application [of a technology] and not adequate testing of impacts,” Gould said.

Therefore, he stresses the need for more long-term and industry-independent studies to better determine any potential chronic impacts of GM crops and food on animals, humans, and the whole ecosystem.

 

 

Studies in the United States on the Health Effects of GMO Food

The American Medical Association (AMA), the largest and oldest organization of medical professionals in the United States, extensively reviewed existing studies on the human health implications of GM food in a 2012 report.

The report concludes, “Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”

The report, however, identifies three areas where “a small potential for adverse events exists”: horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity.

One concern is that GM crops could cause an allergenic or toxic reaction when the intentional transfer of certain genes results in the unintentional transfer of allergens or toxins into the crop. Horizontal gene transfer is the unintentional introduction of genetic material from GM food into body cells that could lead to antibiotic resistance.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is currently conducting a wide-ranging study, the project GMO Risk Assessment and Communication of Evidence (GRACE), which will not only look at health, but also at environmental, and socio-economic impacts of GM plants.

.

GMO Part 2. - Myths and Truths

.

'GMO Myths and Truths' — Report released by genetic engineers

By Anne Sewell

Jul 5, 2012 in Health

In a groundbreaking report, two genetic engineers explain in detail why GMOs are not good for human health or the environment.

The new report has been released today, July 5, and is titled “GMO Myths and Truths”.

The report presents a large body of peer-reviewed scientific and other authoritative evidence of the hazards to health and the environment posed by genetically engineered crops and organisms (GMOs).

While there are many campaigners against GMOs in general, the initiative for this report came not from campaigners, but from two genetic engineers, who believe there are good scientific reasons to be wary of GM crops and food.

One of the genetic engineers involved in the report is Dr. Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the U.K., which uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed.

Dr Antoniou said: “GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims – that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger."

 

 

 

“I felt what was needed was a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view."

“Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effective alternatives to meeting the world’s food needs.”

The second author of the report is Dr. John Fagan, a former genetic engineer, who in 1994 returned $614,000 in grant money to the National Institutes of Health, due to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology. Dr. Fagan then founded a GMO testing company.

He says, “Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology. It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM."

 

 

 

“Over 75% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant super weeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a link between herbicide use and birth defects and cancer."

“These findings fundamentally challenge the utility and safety of GM crops, but the biotech industry uses its influence to block research by independent scientists and uses its powerful PR machine to discredit independent scientists whose findings challenge this approach.”

The third author of the report is Claire Robinson, who is research director of Earth Open Source.

Robinson said, “The GM industry is trying to change our food supply in far-reaching and potentially dangerous ways. We all need to inform ourselves about what is going on and ensure that we – not biotechnology companies – keep control of our food system and crop seeds.

“We hope our report will contribute to a broader understanding of GM crops and the sustainable alternatives that are already working successfully for farmers and communities."

 

An extract from the report reads:

Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of a range of far-reaching claims from the GM crop industry and its supporters. They say that GM crops:

- Are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from naturally bred crops

- Are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops

- Are strictly regulated for safety

- Increase crop yields

- Reduce pesticide use

- Benefit farmers and make their lives easier

- Bring economic benefits

- Benefit the environment

- Can help solve problems caused by climate change

- Reduce energy use

- Will help feed the world.

 

 

 

However, a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true. On the contrary, evidence presented in this report indicates that GM crops:

- Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops

- Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts

- Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety

- Do not increase yield potential

- Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it

- Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops

- Have mixed economic effects

- Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity

- Do not offer effective solutions to climate change

- Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops

- Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.

Based on the evidence presented in this report, there is no need to take risks with GM crops when effective, readily available, and sustainable solutions to the problems that GM technology is claimed to address already exist. Conventional plant breeding, in some cases helped by safe modern technologies like gene mapping and marker assisted selection, continues to outperform GM in producing high-yield, drought-tolerant, and pest- and disease-resistant crops that can meet our present and future food needs.

 

 

Food Price Watch

Highlights

Food prices remain high even after prices of internationally traded food decreased between February and June 2013, the third consecutive quarterly decline.

Higher production, declining imports and increasing stocks pushed down export prices.

 

Uncertain weather conditions and domestic policy decisions still warrant close monitoring going forward.

 

World Bank Says Food Prices Dropping From All-Time Highs

Prices of internationally traded food declined for the third consecutive quarter since their historical peak in August of 2012. Increased production, declining imports and increasing stocks are exerting downward pressure on export prices, but international prices remain tight for maize.

Prices remain high and with recent price increases in May and June, uncertainties surrounding unstable weather conditions and domestic policy decisions among key food producers warrant close scrutiny.

Domestic policies worth watching include public procurement policies, but also consumer price subsidies, which, far from being a thing of the past, continue to be used – even though subsidies often bring meager benefits to the poor, high fiscal costs, corruption episodes and unproven nutritional effects.

Food Price Watch, July 2013

 

 

 

 

Mystery of the disappearing bees: Solved!

 

By Richard Schiffman

APRIL 9, 2012

 

 

If it were a novel, people would criticize the plot for being too far-fetched – thriving colonies disappear overnight without leaving a trace, the bodies of the victims are never found. Only in this case, it’s not fiction: It’s what’s happening to fully a third of commercial beehives, over a million colonies every year. Seemingly healthy communities fly off never to return. The queen bee and mother of the hive is abandoned to starve and die.

 

Thousands of scientific sleuths have been on this case for the last 15 years trying to determine why our honey bees are disappearing in such alarming numbers. “This is the biggest general threat to our food supply,” according to Kevin Hackett, the national program leader for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s bee and pollination program.

 

Until recently, the evidence was inconclusive on the cause of the mysterious “colony collapse disorder” (CCD) that threatens the future of beekeeping worldwide. But three new studies point an accusing finger at a culprit that many have suspected all along, a class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids.

 

In the U.S. alone, these pesticides, produced primarily by the German chemical giant Bayer and known as “neonics” for short, coat a massive 142 million acres of corn, wheat, soy and cotton seeds. They are also a common ingredient in home gardening products.

 

 

 

Research published last month in the prestigious journal Science shows that neonics are absorbed by the plants’ vascular system and contaminate the pollen and nectar that bees encounter on their rounds. They are a nerve poison that disorient their insect victims and appear to damage the homing ability of bees, which may help to account for their mysterious failure to make it back to the hive.

 

Another study published in the American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology journal implicated neonic-containing dust released into the air at planting time with “lethal effects compatible with colony losses phenomena observed by beekeepers.”

 

Purdue University entomologists observed bees at infected hives exhibiting tremors, uncoordinated movement and convulsions, all signs of acute insecticide poisoning. And yet another study conducted by scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health actually re-created colony collapse disorder in several honeybee hives simply by administering small doses of a popular neonic, imidacloprid.

 

But scientists believe that exposure to toxic pesticides is only one factor that has led to the decline of honey bees in recent years. The destruction and fragmentation of bee habitats, as a result of land development and the spread of monoculture agriculture, deprives pollinators of their diverse natural food supply. This has already led to the extinction of a number of wild bee species. The planting of genetically modified organism (GMO) crops – some of which now contain toxic insecticides within their genetic structure – may also be responsible for poisoning bees and weakening their immune systems.

 

 

 

Every spring millions of bee colonies are trucked to the Central Valley of California and other agricultural areas to replace the wild pollinators, which have all but disappeared in many parts of the country. These bees are routinely fed high-fructose corn syrup instead of their own nutritious honey. And in an effort to boost productivity, the queens are now artificially inseminated, which has led to a disturbing decline in bee genetic diversity. Bees are also dusted with chemical poisons to control mites and other pathogens that have flourished in the overcrowded commercial colonies.

 

In 1923, Rudolph Steiner, the German founder of biodynamic agriculture, a precursor of the modern organic movement, predicted that within a hundred years artificial industrial techniques used to breed honey bees would lead to the species’ collapse. His prophecy was right on target!

 

Honey bees have been likened to the canaries in the coal mine. Their vanishing is nature’s way of telling us that conditions have deteriorated in the world around us. Bees won’t survive for long if we don’t change our commercial breeding practices and remove deadly toxins from their environment. A massive pollinator die-off would imperil world food supplies and devastate ecosystems that depend on them. The loss of these creatures might rival climate change in its impact on life on earth.

 

Still, this is a disaster that does not need to happen. Germany and France have already banned pesticides that have been implicated in the deaths of bees. There is still time to save the bees by working with nature rather than against it, according to environmentalist and author Bill McKibben:

 

“Past a certain point, we can’t make nature conform to our industrial model. The collapse of beehives is a warning – and the cleverness of a few beekeepers in figuring out how to work with bees not as masters but as partners offers a clear-eyed kind of hope for many of our ecological dilemmas.”

.

 

GMO Part 1. - America's Health - Obama's Achilles Heel!

.

From Health Treatment to Food Supply

 

When it comes to long term health concerns in America and the world we are inundated with controversy over two principal issues, the health care system in America and the food production system in America.

 

The first was supposed to be resolved by passage of Obamacare yet nothing has been resolved to date as implementation of the massive federal law, after it was approved by Congress and signed by the president, has been, well, about as effective as Congress.

 

 

Far more activity took place in the food production business far from the front pages of newspapers and harking of political pundits.  Obama has clearly done a lot in this area but to date the principal beneficiary is not the public, or middle class, but the six giant agrichemical companies that control the growing of food in the world.

 

As Obama looks forward to his last 3 years in office perhaps he will be more concerned that his legacy is shaping up as a stark reminder of his abandonment of the very people he claimed to be championing.

 

Political talk has always been cheap.  Political action has always been lacking.  The Obama administration has given us more talk and less action on these issues than any president in recent history and his legacy may be as the first president to guarantee liberty and justice for some but certainly not all Americans.

 

These areas are complex, the players are muddled and the public interest is secondary to corporate greed and unfortunately the opposition is fragmented, prone to lack facts and figures, and far too easily seduced by the sensational when cold, hard facts tell us all we need to know.

 

 

World hunger drives the production of genetically engineered seeds.  The estimates for deaths from hunger each year are all over the place ranging from 1.5 million to 15 million children worldwide and maybe 5 million others.  While no deaths should be allowed, the extent of hunger is massive and millions surely die every year.

 

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that nearly 870 million people, or one in eight people in the world, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012. Almost all the hungry people, 852 million, live in developing countries, representing 15 percent of the population of developing counties. There are 16 million people undernourished in developed countries.

 

The number of undernourished people decreased nearly 30 percent in Asia and the Pacific, from 739 million to 563 million, largely due to socio-economic progress in many countries in the region. The prevalence of undernourishment in the region decreased from 23.7 percent to 13.9 percent.

 

 

Latin America and the Caribbean also made progress, falling from 65 million hungry in 1990-1992 to 49 million in 2010-2012, while the prevalence of undernourishment dipped from 14.6 percent to 8.3 percent. But the rate of progress has slowed recently.

 

The number of hungry grew in Africa over the period, from 175 million to 239 million, with nearly 20 million added  in the last few years. Nearly one in four are  hungry. And in sub-Saharan Africa, the modest progress achieved in recent years up to 2007 was reversed, with hunger rising 2 percent per year since then.

 

In order to meet the vast and tragic food needs of the world we have the producers of genetically engineered seeds.

 

And this is where our president faces a quagmire with grave consequences because in March he signed an appropriations bill which included seemingly innocuous language regarding the Farmer Assurance Provision.

 

 

The "Monsanto Protection Act" is the name opponents of the Farmer Assurance Provision have given to this terrifying piece of policy, and it's a fitting moniker given its shocking content.

 

President Barack Obama signed a spending bill, HR 933, into law on March 26, 2013 that includes language that has food and consumer advocates and organic farmers up in arms over their contention that the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act" is a giveaway to corporations that was passed under the cover of darkness.

 

There's a lot being said about it, but here are five terrifying facts about the Farmer Assurance Provision -- Section 735 of the spending bill -- to get you acquainted with the reasons behind the ongoing uproar:

 

 

1.) The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds -- which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company -- and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits.

 

But many anti-GMO folks argue there have not been enough studies into the potential health risks of this new class of crop. Well, now it appears that even if those studies are completed and they end up revealing severe adverse health effects related to the consumption of genetically modified foods, the courts will have no ability to stop the spread of the seeds and the crops they bear.

 

2.) The provision's language was apparently written in collusion with Monsanto. Lawmakers and companies working together to craft legislation is by no means a rare occurrence in this day and age. But the fact that Sen. Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, actually worked with Monsanto on a provision that in effect allows them to keep selling seeds, which can then go on to be planted, even if it is found to be harmful to consumers, is stunning. It's just another example of corporations bending Congress to their will, and it's one that could have dire risks for public health in America.

 

3.) Many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the "Monsanto Protection Act" even existed within the bill they were voting on. HR 933 was a spending bill aimed at averting a government shutdown and ensuring that the federal government would continue to be able to pay its bills. But the Center for Food Safety maintains that many Democrats in Congress were not even aware that the provision was in the legislation:

 

“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”

 

4.) The President did nothing to stop it, either. Obama signed HR 933 while the rest of the nation was fixated on gay marriage, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument concerning California's Proposition 8. But just because most of the nation and the media were paying attention to gay marriage doesn't mean that others were not doing their best to express their opposition to the "Monsanto Protection Act." In fact, more than 250,000 voters signed a petition opposing the provision He signed it anyway.

 

5.) It sets a terrible precedent. Though it will only remain in effect for six months until the government finds another way to fund its operations, the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right.

 

 

And this takes us to the role of agrichemical drug companies in our food production business.  Who are these companies and what do they do?  For one thing they hold a worldwide monopoly on seed production.

 

For the record those six agrichemical businesses are chemical giants Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow Agrosciences, BASF, Bayer, and Pioneer (DuPont).

 

In practically every case the company rose to become multi-billion dollar behemoths by supplying the pesticides used to fertilize our vast agricultural economy.  For decades these companies supplied the sometimes deadly chemicals used to control bugs, droughts, weeds and other obstacles to increased crop production.

 

But in the last 20 years, as it became more and more obvious that some of these very chemicals were causing dangerous side effects, the chemical companies began to take over the seed production and agricultural research businesses and used them to create seeds resistant to the very chemicals they supplied.

 

Now they were in a position to dominate both the seed production and chemical business.  For example, Monsanto is the world's largest seed company and 5th largest agrichemical company.  Syngenta is the world's third largest seed company and second largest agrichemical company.

 

 

Here is what they stand for!

 

Top Ten Seed Companies in World

 

1.  Monsanto     USA     $7.3 billion annual sales

2.  DuPont (Pioneer)     USA     $4.6 billion annual sales
3.  Syngenta     Switzerland     $2.6 billion annual sales
4.  Groupe Limagrain     France     $1.2 billion annual sales
5.  Land O' Lakes/Winfield Solutions     USA     $1.1 billion sales
6.  KWS AG    Germany     $997 million annual sales
7.  Bayer CropScience     Germany     $700 million annual sales
8.  Dow AgroSciences     USA     $635 million annual sales
9.  Sakata     Japan     $491 million annual sales
10. DLF-Trifolium A/S     Denmark     $385 million

The Big Six (agrichemical) companies generate $50 billion a year in sales of seeds and agrichemicals.

They spend $4.7 billion on agricultural research and development.

They cross license between each other to eliminate competition.

They control 76% of the world's private sector R & D spending for seeds and chemicals.

The top ten seed companies control 73% of the world's commercial seed market.

The top three companies control over 50% of the proprietary seed market and 75% of all patents issued between 1982 and 2007.

Of the $22.9 billion spent on seeds annually, $16.8 billion goes to chemical companies and $6.1 billion to farmer saved seeds.

1.4 billion people still depend on farmer saved seeds.

Part 2 of this series seeks the truth behind the myths for and against this type of activity.
.